The Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Problem in the West

Fire in the West, the Series

The first edition of Fire in the West was published in 1998. It was intended to be a report to the Council of Western State Foresters on the status of wildland fires in the West. For the first time, a person could find information on the authorities, responsibilities and fire protection systems for each of the seventeen western state forestry agencies as well as the numbers of fires and acres burned in the western states.

In the spring of 2000, the Western State Fire Managers commissioned a special study on the extent of the Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Problem in the West. The third edition of Fire in the West was published in September of that year. This report could not have been more timely, because that year the West burned and the wildland/urban interface problem “smacked” us in the face.

The fourth in the series of Fire in the West documented the 2000 fire season. In this edition the federal agency statistics were added, thus really presenting the full impacts of fire in the West.

Fire in the West will never be a “best seller,” but it has become the document of choice when you want to know something about the extent that wildland fires play a key roles in the Western environment.

Additional Copies Copies of Fire in the West can be purchased from Deer Valley Press. Write or call Deer Valley Press, 5125 Deer Valley Road, Rescue, CA 95672 or telephone (530) 676-7401. You can also find them on the “web” at www.deervalleypress.com. May 15, 2003

Council of Western State Foresters TO: : Western State Fire Managers, FROM It is an honor to again provide the Council of Western State Foresters with the most complete, there look is specialat the extent focus andon the complexity of the Firewildland in the fire West protection in the West. In this, th the 5 edition of implementation of the National Fire Plan in the West and a review of the disastrous 2002 fire season. Some of the key points that will be highlighted and supported with facts are:

• The number of fires and acres burned is on the increase.

• There will be bigger, more damaging and costlier fires.

• The National Fire Plan is providing much needed funding, but it will not last forever, and most of the funds are not being expended on long-term or permanent fixes to the fuel buildup, the wildland/urban interface fire problem and to forest health.

Your fire managers hope this edition of Fire in the West is of value to you and they want to extend their thanks for the continuing support you give them.

Sincerely,

Wayne F. Ching, Chair Western State Fire Managers

1 2 Executive Summary Table of Contents • Fire is an integral part of the natural environment in the West. In Fire Season 2002, nearly 40,000 wildfires burned nearly seven million acres in the seventeen western states, Executive Summary destroyed hundreds of structures, and killed 21 firefighters in the West. Wildland Fire Protection • All levels of government – federal, state, and local – are either directly, or indirectly, Levels of Government (9) involved in mitigating the wildfire problem, especially in the wildland/urban interface. Areas of Responsibility (10) Here, where human improvements are mixed with flammable natural vegetation, lives, Protection Schemes (11) Funding Sources and Levels (12) natural resources and property are threatened by increasingly severe wildfires. Local Fire Departments (13) Wildland/Urban Interface (14) • A variety of federal, state, and local government agencies (as well as forest protective Roles and Responsibilities (17) associations) provide wildland fire protection in the West. A variety of protection systems Suppression Policies (41) are provided by the 17 western states, ranging from full-scale sophisticated wildland fire Fire Environment (45) departments to inadequate attempts to provide fire prevention education and interagency National Fire Plan coordination with staffing and funding. Most states are somewhere in between, with not Competitive Grants (68) enough funding to do the job effectively. Funding mechanisms for the state forestry agen- Communities at Risk (70) cies vary, with many of the rural states nearly totally dependent on State Fire Assistance Urban Watershed at Risk (80) funds from the federal government. Local government fire departments rely primarily on Healthy Forests Initiative (97) property taxes, benefit assessment fees, or in the rural all-volunteer fire departments, Drought and Fire Season 2002 donations. There are nearly 6,500 local government fire departments in the West. These Drought and Forest Fires (101) departments are frequently the initial attack force on many wildfires and the primary The 2002 Fire Season (105) source of resources for structure protection during major wildfires. Safety and Stategy (114) Why Fires Will Get Bigger (117) • The major federal wildland fire agencies have a variety of management goals that influ- Major Fires (121) ence decisions made during managing wildfires on the lands they control. State and local 2002 Statistics (149) fire protection agencies charged with the protection of small parcels in multiple owner- Appendices ships must be committed to immediate control and extinguishment (i.e. suppression) of Wildland/Urban Interface (190) wildfires. As wildfires do not respect jurisdictional or property ownership boundaries, Federal Land Ownership (195) there are times when administrative and operational conflicts can arise between agencies. WUI Fire History (205)

• Interagency cooperation using the Incident Command System (ICS), Unified Com- mand, and Multi-Agency Coordinating System (MACS) are the key tools for successful mitigation of major wildfire emergencies. Potential conflicts need to be addressed prior to

3 the fire with clear, comprehensive interagency agreements and operating plans. Joint training, exercises, and command teams involving all fire agencies provide economy of scale and assure jurisdictional agency input.

• Long-term drought, logging, the exclusion of fire, human development, and a variety of other factors have created a situation where most western forests are overstocked, unhealthy, and at greater risk of catastrophic wildfire than ever before. Wildfires now burn Many factors have been involved in more intensely, are more resistant to control, and cause greater damage, especially during “creating” the unhealthy forest drought conditions. Extensive preparation and follow-up are necessary to effectively condition in the West. reintroduce (prescribed) fire to the ecosystem to improve forest health or reduce fire danger. These include large scale tree thinning, brush crushing, and control line construction, followed by treatment of emergent undesirable species and planting of desirable species. Air quality regulations and the threat of civil liability are also hindrances to expanded use of prescribed fire to restore ecosystem health. To be of strategic value, most fuel reduction projects need to be cooperative, involving multiple agencies and landowners.

• The primary values at risk from wildfire, in order of priority, are: (1) human health and Homeowners must accept the safety; (2) critical watersheds/resources (urban water supply, community infrastructure, responsibility to provide protection community economic stability, communities themselves); and, (3) natural resources and individual homes. An area of contention between all levels of government has been who is for their homes. responsible for protecting structures from encroaching wildfires? There is only one correct answer: everybody; federal, state, and local governments, property owners, and communities (both urban and rural) all have an important stake in wildfire prevention and control. Homeowners in the wildland have to accept the responsibility to use ignition-resistant roofing and provide defensible space so that fire suppression forces have a greater chance of success. Whole communities need to assume responsibility for improving their own protection by providing fuelbreaks, adding fire defense improvements, and funding adequate fire protection. Local governments need to adopt planning and development regulations that will reduce the exposure of improvements in the wildland/urban interface to wildfire and to provide an adequate level of fire protection. State governments need to take the lead in providing an appropriate level of wildfire protection on non-federal lands, especially in the wildland/urban interface. The federal agencies need to provide an adequate level of protection on federal lands, especially those adjoining the wildland/urban interface.

4 • The National Fire Plan (NFP) is a coordinated federal response to the devastating fire season of 2000 that seeks to augment federal wildfire protection capability and provide increased funding to state and local government agencies to reduce fire hazard and risk, and to improve wildfire protection capabilities, especially in the wildland/urban interface (WUI). The Healthy Forests Initiative attempts to more efficiently employ commercial and The National Fire Plan is the federal non-commercial harvest methods that can reduce fire danger, improve forest health, and contribute to local economic growth. FireWise helps communities organize for large-scale response to Fire Season 2000. hazard reduction projects in the wildland/urban interface. All seventeen western States have received NFP funding for a wide variety of projects. The most popular types of projects are public education, National Fire Plan Funding, by State fuelbreaks, and mechanical thinning. Many of the projects Federal Grants for Fiscal Year 2002 State Fire Assistance are cooperative, involving Volunteer Fire Assistance Rural Fire Assistance TOTAL (2) Base Funding (Formula) Competitive Grants multiple government agencies, Alaska $335,609 3.4% $895,391 3.9% $283,657 5.1% $96,628 1.2% $1,611,285 3.5% community groups, property Arizona* $897,000 9.1% $2,221,500 9.7% $376,000 6.8% $455,750 5.7% $3,950,250 8.6% owners, public utilities, etc. California* $1,000,210 10.1% $937,770 4.1% $954,072 17.3% $662,000 8.3% $3,554,052 7.7% Communities-at-risk like Bend Colorado* $994,304 10.1% $3,630,435 15.9% $669,643 12.2% $544,000 6.9% $5,838,382 12.7% (OR), Spokane (WA), Flag- Hawaii* $380,651 3.9% $115,480 0.5% $200,599 3.6% $15,000 0.2% $711,730 1.5% staff (AZ), and Oakhurst (CA) Idaho* $486,800 4.9% $3,530,700 15.5% $184,400 3.3% $935,575 11.8% $5,137,475 11.1% have leveraged federal grant Kansas $495,000 5.0% $60,000 0.3% $181,000 3.3% $33,537 0.4% $769,537 1.7% money with private grants, Montana* $603,700 6.1% $1,140,067 5.0% $378,713 6.9% $854,030 10.8% $2,976,510 6.5% cooperate sponsorships, and Nebraska* $467,100 4.7% $28,000 0.1% $143,000 2.6% $101,416 1.3% $739,516 1.6% volunteer peoplepower to Nevada* $307,000 3.1% $1,999,936 8.8% $157,681 2.9% $873,928 11.0% $3,338,545 7.2% New Mexico $72,500 0.7% $2,110,500 9.3% $193,300 3.5% $484,517 6.1% $2,860,817 6.2% achieve a common end. North Dakota* $195,500 2.0% $0 0.0% $407,900 7.4% $228,597 2.9% $831,997 1.8% Oregon $1,041,395 10.6% $2,953,209 12.9% $416,390 7.6% $816,939 10.3% $5,227,933 11.3% • There is a need for a col- South Dakota* $584,100 5.9% $346,000 1.5% $197,000 3.6% $222,000 2.8% $1,349,100 2.9% laborative process for identify- Utah* $381,134 3.9% $427,000 1.9% $229,229 4.2% $760,000 9.6% $1,797,363 3.9% ing and prioritizing communi- Washington $383,395 3.9% $1,490,000 6.5% $384,221 7.0% $385,226 4.9% $2,642,842 5.7% ties-at-risk and a standard Wyoming* $463,000 4.7% $846,602 3.7% $151,300 2.7% $466,456 5.9% $1,927,358 4.2% methodology for assessing risk Other(1) $766,300 $80,000 0.4% $0 $0 $846,300 of communities in order to Total $9,854,698 $22,812,590 $5,508,105 $7,935,599 $46,110,992 achieve maximum benefit $32,667,288 from limited resources avail- National Total $51,727,402 $10,419,113 $9,942,744 $72,089,259 able under the National Fire Source: FY 2002 Performance Report - National Fire Plan, January 2003; * individual state records; (1) Guam and American Samoa, CNMI and other Pacific Plan. Flagstaff, AZ is probably Islands; (2) Not all of these funds are administered by the State Forester. 5 a model community for the combined issues of forest health and fire hazard reduction in the wildland/urban interface. Here overstocked, decadent pine forests surround a thriving city with normal high fire danger exacerbated by continuing drought. A strong coalition of The damages to watersheds impact government agencies, corporate sponsors, and community associations is making excellent urban areas miles from the fire. progress in its attempt to restore forest health and reduce fire hazard in the metropolitan area.

• One of the most important values at risk from wildfire, urban watershed, was highlighted in 2002 when the Hayman Fire burned much of the Denver watershed on the South Platte River. Many millions of dollars must be invested to reduce erosion and siltation and to protect the municipal water system from potential damage. A severe storm and flood could incapacitate the water system for millions of people. The same potential exists in hundreds Major fires were the result of of western communities. Everybody benefits from watershed fire protection or suffers from decadent forest health and drought. lack of it.

• Fire Season 2002 was busy, intense, and difficult throughout the West, and punctuated by record-sized fires in Arizona, Colorado, and Oregon. Major fires were the result of decadent forest health and drought. Despite the severity of the fire season and the scope of damages, there were some success stories. Often crown fires were controlled when they reached a completed thinning projects, proving the effectiveness of the concept of fuel reduction; much of the NFP project work is targeted at wildland/ urban interface communities that are at greatest risk from wildfire; and cooperative efforts improved the level of fire protection in many areas.

6 • Firefighter safety should continue to be emphasized, but not to the extent of employing avoidance strategies. Fire Order #1: “Fight fire aggressively, but provide for safety first” needs to be reemphasized.

• Fires will continue to get bigger, costlier, and more damaging due to existing Wildland fires in the West will get and worsening weather and bigger, costlier and be more fuel conditions, wildland/ urban interface spread, damaging. inadequate pre-suppression, failed suppression actions, strategic and tactical limitations, legal constraints, philosophical differences, and human factors. Structure loss will continue to be • Fire Season 2003 and high! years ahead, may be as bad or worse, depending on variable weather conditions, especially if, as is predicted, the drought continues in the West. Structure loss will continue to be high, as the wildland/ urban interface continues to expand.

7 Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of the Western State Fire Managers; Western State Fire Managers without their help this report would not be possible. We would also like to thank the following Joe Stam, AK David Behrens, AZ individuals who graciously contributed their time, knowledge and experience to this report: Jim Wright, CA Rich Homann, CO Arizona: Wayne Ching, HI Kevin Boness and Russ Shumate, ASLD Fire Management Division Brian Shiplett, ID Ken Butler and George Leech, BIA Ft. Apache Agency Casey McCoy, KS Tim Murphy, MT Brian Cottam, Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership Don Westover, NE Bob Ashworth, NV Colorado: Frank Smith, NM Jim Hubbard and Chuck Dennis, Colorado State Forest Service Mike Santucci, ND Bill Lafferty, OR Steve Hasenohrl, SD Idaho: David Dalrymple, UT Mike Tennery, Idaho Department of Lands Skip Simmons, WA Larry Isenberg and Lori Barnes, FireSmart Kootenai County Ray Weidenhaft, WY Roberta Black, Kootenai County Local Emergency Planning Committee Peggy Polichio, Idaho Department of Lands and Idaho National Forest

Montana: Paula Rosenthal, Montana Department of Natural Resources Conservation Sherry Devlin, the Missoulian.

Oregon: Dan Thorpe, Oregon Department of Forestry Chief Bret Fillis, Applegate Valley Rural Fire Protection District No. 9 Greg Chandler and Brian Keating, BLM Medford District.

Council of Western State Foresters Jeff Jahnke, Liaison with the Western State Foresters Jim Lawrence, Western Forestry Coordination Center

8 Introduction

Before we begin discussing the National Fire Plan and the extent of the 2002 fire season, we need to present some background on the fire problem in the West and how each of the wildland firefighting agencies is organized.

Fire in the West was first published to document the extent and nature of wildfire in the Fire in the West is a report to the Western United States. It for the first time documented the numbers of fires, by size class and type, for the 17 western states. It also described the authorities and responsibilities of each of Council of Western State Foresters the state forestry organizations. The first edition of Fire in the West was published in 1998, and on the status of fire in the West. within it there was also the first attempt to define levels of wildland fire protection.

Wildland Fire Protection in the West

Fire is an integral part of the natural environment of the Western United States. Each year thousands of fires damage or destroy hundreds of thousands of acres of grass, brush, and timber. Fire is an important part of the natu- More and more frequently, structures are destroyed and lives put at risk by wildfire throughout ral environment. the West. Fire respects no governmental boundaries, so it crosses them regularly. The following definitions will give the reader a basic understanding of the complications involved with wildland fire protection.

Levels of Government In the United States, there are three basic levels of government: local, state and federal. Each level of government has different authorities and responsibilities. n Local government is defined as incorporated cities, counties, boroughs, or special districts. There are thousands of local entities in the West, most of which have their own fire authority or agency. The protection of life and property is the primary function of a local government fire department. The vast majority of local fire agencies are not adequately trained or equipped to fight wildland fires.

9 n State governments address the wildfire issue in varying ways. Several states have adopted laws that direct the State Forester to provide wildland fire protection and provide funding, personnel, and equipment to deliver services. Other states give the responsibility of providing wildland fire protection to the State Forester, but do not provide funding for such protection. Only Nevada has given it’s State Forester the responsibility to provide protection to the same level as traditional local government fire departments. In most states, there may be more than one state agency that has some role to play in wildland fire protection. There are the State Forester, the State Emergency Services agency, the National Guard, and the State Fire Mar- shal, to name a few.

n Federal land management agencies provide differing levels of wildland fire protection depending on their authorities and responsibilities. The levels of fire protection provided by the Sharing protection responsibilities USDA Forest Service and the USDI Bureau of Land Management differ from that provided between agencies is common. by the USDI National Park Service, simply because their missions are different.

In some cases, the various authorities and responsibilities between federal, state and local agencies may be overlapping and in conflict. This can lead to confusion and frustration. The wildland fire protection problem is further compounded by the fact that these types of fires know no boundaries.

Areas of Responsibility There are many different areas of responsibility. The area of responsibility for a city or special district is easily defined; it is the area within the city limits or district. The area of responsibility for a federal agency is the land they administer. The area of responsibility for a State is usually most complex. This area, called state responsibility area, is defined in a piece of legislation that places “qualifiers” on the land. It may be land owned by the State, or all forested lands within the State that are not within an incorporated city or owned by the federal government, or all privately owned forested lands.

A direct protection area is that area of the State where State forces provide direct fire protection. The direct protection area usually includes state responsibility area, but it also may include lands of another agency that it protects under the authority of a cooperative agreement. The best example of this type of protection is when a state protects federal lands that are adjacent to state protected lands, or when the Forest Service protects private lands within the national forest. 10 A local protection area is an area where the State has not Area Protected (in acres) declared it has a direct responsibility. This may be non- forested areas within a city or fire district. The primary fire Direct Cooperative Coordination Total protection responsibility in these areas lies with a local gov- Alaska 151,695,898 151,695,898 ernmental entity, or there may be no protection at all. Arizona 22,200,000 22,200,000 California 31,174,492 11,000,000 42,174,492 Colorado 25,958,109 15,474,870 41,432,979 Protection Schemes (State Forestry Agencies) Hawaii 850,000 3,306,300 4,156,300 To fully understand the extent of the wildland fire protec- Idaho 6,025,690 6,025,690 tion in the West, there has to be a discussion of the various types of protection provided by the States. As mentioned, there Kansas 46,400,000 46,400,000 is a vast difference in the authorities, responsibilities, and the Montana 5,164,927 45,309,480 50,474,407 levels of protection provided (Figure 1). There are three gen- Nebraska 49,083,520 49,083,520 eral types of wildland fire protection provided by the States: Nevada 11,999,791 20,919,540 32,919,331 New Mexico 42,500,000 42,500,000 n Direct Protection – A State is providing direct protection North Dakota 31,878,661 31,878,661 when it provides funding for personnel and equipment to Oregon 11,300,000 2,300,000 13,600,000 protect it’s state responsibility area. There is a command South Dakota 949,117 47,000,000 47,949,117 authority and direct employment of firefighting personnel Utah 15,000,000 15,000,000 designated to provide protection. Examples: Alaska, Califor- Washington 12,637,000 12,637,000 nia, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. Wyoming 4,237,000 24,863,000 29,100,000 n Cooperative Protection – A state is providing cooperative 261,992,024 138,309,480 238,925,891 639,227,395 protection when it provides funding for the protection of it’s state responsibility area, but provides the protection using Figure 1. Each State defines its responsibility differently. If the State establishes other agencies’ forces under a cooperative agreement. There a direct protection area and provides funding and resources to protect it, this is is a command authority and limited firefighting forces, but direct protection. Other States may take the responsibility to assist in protection, but use forces from other agencies to protect the area...this is considered the primary firefighting forces are another agency’s employ- cooperative protection. The third type of protection is coordinated protection. ees. Examples: Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. This is when the State has given the State Forester broad responsibilities, but limited funding to provide the protection. n Coordinated Protection – A State is providing coordinated protection when it does not have funding to provide suppression activities, but provides coordination of wildland fire prevention activities and suppression efforts throughout the State. Fire protection of privately owned lands is the responsibility of local agencies. Examples: North Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska.

11 There may be hybrids of these three types of protection. An example is Montana. They provide direct protection to 5 million acres of privately or State owned lands, but they also provide cooperative protection on 45 million acres of non-forested private lands in the eastern part of the State.

The States use various sources to Funding Sources and Levels of Protection fund fire protection. The States use various sources to fund fire protection (Figure 2). Some use general fund revenues, others use fees collected specifically for wildland fire protection. California is unique in that it contracts with local entities to provide municipal type fire protection services, but can use these forces to supplement it’s wildland fire protection operations. Nevada is unique also in that they have the responsibility to provide full service fire protection in specific areas, just as any municipal fire department would.

The federal government also provides State and local entities with funds. There are two USDA Forest Service grant programs, State Fire Assistance (previously know as the Rural Fire Prevention and Control Program) used to fund certain State fire programs, and Volunteer Fire Assistance (previously know as the Rural Community Fire Protection Program) used to fund rural fire protection programs. Volunteer Fire Assistance and State Fire Assistance are matching grant programs administered by the various State Foresters. There is also a new USDI grant program, Rural Fire Assistance, that is available.

Funding Levels The funding of the various State forestry organizations varies as widely as their authorities. Cali- Figure 2. Wildland fire protection can be very complicated. There may be areas where the protection fornia has by far the largest program. The millions responsibilities overlap and may even be in conflict. Local authority is usually the simplest. State responsibilities differ with each State and usually overlay local government. Federal protection they are budgeted covers the cost of one of the responsibilities differ between the agencies, and the federal government provides some funding to the largest fire protection programs in the world. States and volunteer organizations in the West.

12 Federal funding is a significant source of funding for several States. The loss of this money to the States would jeopardize their programs. Each year the Western States receive several million dollars under the State Fire Assistance program. Also, the federal government funds a limited number of volunteer fire operations. Number of Local Fire Departments Local Government Fire Departments Alaska 288 Every State forestry organization attempts to maintain Arizona 252 good working relationships with the fire departments within their State. The number of fire departments varies California 927 Local fire departments are key greatly in the West. Hawaii has only seven to deal with Colorado 398 Hawaii 7 resources for initial attack and where California has over 900 fire departments in the structure protection. State. There are over 6,000 local fire departments in the Idaho 170 Western States (Figure 3). The actual number of fire Kansas 673 departments is actually decreasing, due to consolidations. Montana 412 Nebraska 490 Several States rely totally on local departments to Nevada 211 suppress wildland fires within the State. In the remaining New Mexico 359 States, the local fire departments are used for initial attack, North Dakota 396 and when the situation becomes critical the fire depart- Oregon 438 ments are called upon to provide depth to the fire attack. South Dakota 364 Utah 230 Local fire departments often play a major role in Washington 560 protecting structures that are being threatened by a wild- Wyoming 235 land/urban interface fire. None of the western States can adequately deal with a wildland/urban interface fire situa- 6,410 tion without the assistance of local fire departments and Figure 3. Local fire departments play a the cooperation of the Federal land management agencies. vital role in the protection of each state’s In some parts of the West, rural fire departments are not wildland resources. They especially come supported by taxing authorities. into play for structure protection during a wildland/urban interface fire.

13 The Wildland/Urban Interface

The wildland/urban interface fire problem has existed for hundreds of years. As early as 1793 the Governor of Upper and Lower California issued a proclamation that “prohibited all kinds of burning, not only in the vicinity of towns, …which cause some detriment…”. In the last 50 years the problem has become more complex as the population has grown and more development has moved The wildland/urban interface fire into the wildlands. Starting with the Bel Air Fire in 1961, problem is not just a problem in California became a focal point for this new fire prob- California...it is a problem in the West. lem, where forest or brush fires moved into, and sometimes through, residential subdivisions, destroying large numbers of homes. In the last 20 years of the Twentieth Century, the wildland/urban interface fire problem began to appear in such geographically diverse areas as central Florida, eastern Washington, central Colorado, and even Long Island, New York. Now, each fire season seems to produce several major wildfires somewhere in the United States, and especially in the West, that destroy large numbers of homes or other buildings.

Definitions The wildland/urban interface is any area where humans and their developments meet or are intermixed with wildland fuels. These locations can be as different as the pine forests of Flagstaff, the brush fields of San Bernardino, the palmetto thickets of Orlando, or the maple forests of Boston. Anywhere that buildings are erected in the woods, sooner or later, wildfire will be a threat to those buildings.

In recent years, fire professionals have developed standardized terminology to describe four different wildland/urban interface conditions: Interface, Intermix, Occluded, and Rural (See Appendix for complete definitions). These common descriptors allow for interchange of data and ideas among fire professionals from different regions on how to mitigate this growing wildland/urban interface fire problem.

14 Responsibilities Historically, protecting structures (especially houses) from fire has been a function of local government, either through volunteer fire departments in small towns, or full-time paid firefighters in large cities. In the post WWII period of expansion of wildland fire Wildfires destroy homes every year. protection in the US, wildland firefighting became a separate distinct specialty fire profession. After all, fighting fire in the forest was very different than fighting a fire in a house. Thus, municipal firefighters learned how to fight house fires and wildland firefighters learned how to fight wildfires, and seldom did the two meet.

As the houses spread into the wildlands, however, conflicts arose over whose responsibility it was (both physi- cally and financially) to protect structures from encroaching wildfires. The federal wildland fire agencies did not want to bear the rapidly increasing costs of structure protection in the wildland/urban interface, and local government did not want to have to bear the costs of saving houses from fires managed, and sometimes created, by the feds. Nei- ther side wanted to absorb the cost of the specialized training and equipment necessary to allow their firefighters to fight the other kind of fire. State wildfire agencies were frequently caught in the middle, trying to broker deals for enough structural fire resources to save a community with no assurance if and by whom these resource would be paid. Frequently Federal Emergency Management Agency funds have been used to pay the cost of trying to save a house from a wildfire as well as the cost of rebuilding the house when that effort failed.

As the wildland/urban interface fire problem continues to spread, fire professionals from all agencies have found it necessary to better prepare to jointly participate in the protection of structures and communities from wildfires. Federal wildland fire management teams have learned to call upon municipal fire officers for the expertise and resources needed to prepare and execute effective structure protection plans during major wildfires. In some

15 states, interagency agreements have decided in advance who will have not only the physical responsibility for structure protection, but also the financial responsibility.

Adequate clearance is key! Solutions The key to successful fire operations in the wildland/urban interface is for all jurisdictional agencies to agree in advance to their specific roles and levels of financial commitment in the event of a wildfire. The most promising solutions to the wildland/urban interface fire problem in the West are coming from communities where federal, state, and local government fire agencies have banded together with community associations, local business, and service organizations to educate homeowners about the issue, sponsor projects to reduce fire hazards in the interface, and preplan a joint response to wildfires.

The FireWise project has provided hundreds of community leaders the tools to undertake wildfire mitigation projects. State forestry agencies are using grant funding from a variety of sources to educate individual property owners on the importance of creating and maintaining defensible space around their homes, and to underwrite local community efforts in fire hazard reduction, especially the creation of community fuelbreaks and thinning of forests in and near communities.

The wildland/urban interface fire problem is widespread and complex, and the local solutions will be successful only when all of the parties assume their fair share of the responsibility.

16 Roles and Responsibilities

Fire is part of the West. It is a good friend when used properly. It is an enemy when it kills, destroys property, watersheds, soils and livelihoods. Each of the states have developed fire protection systems that match their need. Each of the wildland fire agencies in the West has different roles and responsibilities, as determined by legislation and administrative regulations at both the federal and state levels.

Federal Wildland Agencies The five federal land management agencies have different missions for stewardship of the public lands under their jurisdiction, some aspects of which may hinder traditional fire control methods or treat fire differently than adjacent/affected neighbors. These agencies and their fire missions are: The federal wildland agencies administer over 650 million acres in • USDA Forest Service (FS): Administers National Forest System Lands with objectives ranging from intensive specific uses (e.g. recreation, timber production) to wilder- the West. ness preservation, to protection of rare and endangered species. Fire is sometimes viewed as a management tool to help meet planned resource management objectives. Personnel are trained as wildland (not structural) firefighters and an extensive fire protection infrastructure exists in the West.

• USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Administers public domain lands, which in many cases in the West are lands unsuitable for growing commercial timber and are grass, sage, and brush-covered rangelands used historically primarily for live- stock grazing. Land use objectives range from intensive special use (e.g. mining, oil production, recreation) to protection of endangered species. Fire is viewed as a management tool to help meet preplanned natural resource objectives. Personnel are trained as wildland (not structural) firefighters and a significant fire protection infrastructure exists in geographically separated areas of significant landholdings. Much BLM land receives primary wildland fire protection from state or local government fire agencies due to its being scattered, small parcels.

• USDI National Park Service (NPS): Administers national parks, monuments, and recreation areas with a primary mission of preservation of natural resources or historic artifacts. Fire is viewed as a natural part of the ecosystem and human intervention is 17 discouraged, except to protect lives and valuable improvements on the land. Because it often has “exclusive jurisdiction”, most NPS firefighters are trained and properly equipped to provide both wildland and structural fire protection services, as well as emergency medical care. Its fire protection infrastructure varies with the size and public use of the specific location and is widely scattered.

The federal wildland agencies are not • USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS): Administers National Wildlife Refuges with a responsible for the protection of primary mission to protect habitat for wildlife. Fire is seen as a habitat management tool in structures. some ecosystems, but because of the small size of most refuges, wildfire from outside sources can be a significant threat to the whole refuge and is aggressively controlled. With the exception of a few very large refuges, the FWS has few trained wildland fire personnel and a minimal amount of fire protection equipment, relying for most fire protection on neighboring state or local government fire agencies.

• USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA): Administers Indian Reservations with the primary goal of protecting and providing resources that contribute to the social and economic well being of numerous tribes of Native Americans. Fire is used as a management tool to meet specific planned resource management objectives and wildfire is controlled as a public Federal Land Ownership Data nuisance. Only the largest reservations Areas, in acres. have trained fire personnel and fire Fish and Bur of Land Bur of Indian National Dept of Other Forest Service Wildlife TOTAL protection equipment. Many small Management Affairs Park Service Defense Federal Service reservations receive primary fire protec- Alaska 22,004,745 86,908,060 1,140,410 76,321,037 52,891,681 1,677,718 22,851 240,966,502 Arizona 11,250,693 14,252,778 20,718,207 1,716,858 2,629,633 1,219,717 2,751 51,790,637 tion from state or local government fire California 20,627,691 14,556,074 191,020 323,642 4,615,013 1,753,493 434,695 42,501,628 agencies. A recent development is the Colorado 14,501,592 8,296,512 32,835 81,574 574,689 415,473 358,175 24,260,850 Hawaii 1 0 0 288,511 220,410 127,734 1,627 638,283 increased economic vigor of those tribes Idaho 20,442,651 11,847,328 55,700 76,068 86,866 14,402 1,067,840 33,590,855 that have developed casinos, which Kansas 108,175 0 40,234 58,332 698 143,447 97,088 447,974 provide enough revenue that several Montana 16,872,610 8,060,382 1,074,907 1,153,013 1,221,314 2,540 316,204 28,700,970 Nebraska 352,133 6,580 66,469 172,360 5,863 18,703 119,139 741,247 tribal governments have developed their Nevada 5,815,856 47,844,391 1,233,000 2,318,069 165,500 484,965 1,699,739 59,561,520 own independent fire departments. New Mexico 9,326,599 12,770,569 8,349,148 384,251 371,827 3,180,226 453,865 34,836,485 North Dakota 1,105,779 59,717 866,896 487,654 71,640 2,112 1,273,320 3,867,118 Oregon 15,664,078 16,223,739 796,588 557,479 194,859 31,072 133,625 33,601,440 The roles and responsibilities of the South Dakota 2,013,628 279,869 5,002,056 198,086 263,629 890 60,455 7,818,613 wildland fire (state forestry) agencies in Utah 8,112,462 22,877,713 2,331,094 419,169 2,015,426 939,973 660,613 37,356,450 Washington 9,174,956 370,110 2,602,254 186,369 1,932,401 433,251 752,979 15,452,320 each of the 17 western states are outlined Wyoming 9,258,281 18,383,926 1,889,532 86,486 2,393,198 9,512 815,841 32,836,776 in the next section of this report.

TOTAL 166,631,930 262,737,748 46,390,350 84,828,958 69,654,647 10,455,228 8,270,807 648,969,668 18 State Forestry Agency Responsibilities and Protection Systems

19 Alaska Division of Forestry - The Alaska Division of Forestry is a division within the Department of Natural Resources.

Responsibility The Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources is charged with ...the protection of forested land in the State from fire and other destructive agents …commensurate with the value of the resources at risk, for the natural resources and watersheds on land that is owned privately, by the State, or by a municipality.

The Commissioner has directed that...the Division of Forestry will provide for the protection of the natural surface resources, man-made improvements and human life from the threat of wildland fire for all lands under State and private ownership, with the exception of: (A.) Private land protected by the Federal government as enacted by law; (B.) Any land within a borough or municipality whose organized fire department has accepted protection responsibility.

Protection System The Alaska Division of Forestry is responsible for the protection of 151.7 million acres. The USDI, Bureau of Land Management through it’s Alaska Fire Service, protects 192 million acres and the USDA, Forest Service protects the 26 million acres of federal lands within the national forests.

The Division employs 22 full-time employees and hires over 160 temporary or seasonal firefighters. During the peak fire season period, the Division staffs 37 engine companies and operates or contracts for 2 airtankers, 2 air attacks, 4 fixed wing aircraft, and 7 helicopters.

In an effort to improve efficiency and effectiveness, the Division of Forestry entered into a cooperative agreement with the USDI, Bureau of Land Management to divide the State into two direct protection areas. The Bureau provides wildland fire protection to all of the federal, state, and private lands in the north part of the State and the Division provides protection in the south. The Forest Service continues to protect their own land.

20 State statutes provide that cities and boroughs may provide structural fire protection within their jurisdiction or within specifically formed service areas. Even though the Division’s area of responsibility overlaps with local jurisdictional areas, the protection services provided by both governmental entities do not normally conflict with each other except when a wildland fire (the State’s responsibility) threatens a structure (the local jurisdiction’s responsibility).

To enhance the wildland fire protection within the Division’s direct protection area, they have entered into cooperative fire protection agreements with 56 city and borough fire agencies. The main purpose of these agreements is to provide assistance to the Division when a fire occurs in the area or to provide protection during the “non-fire season” periods when the Divi- sion does not staff it’s fire equipment. There are 288 organized fire departments in the State.

Fire Activity Alaska averages just over 300 wildland fires and burns just under 227,000 acres a year. The annual acreage burned varies significantly from 16,585 acres in 1995 to over a million acres in 1997. Debris burning is the single most frequent cause at 33 percent, with miscellaneous as the second highest causal rate at 24 percent. An average of 91 percent of fires were contained at under 10 acres with an average fire size of 0.51 acres. The average size of fires over 10 acres was 7,058 acres. Alaska is unique in it’s size in that it constitutes over 25 percent of the total acres in all of the 17 Western States.

During Fire Season 2002, Alaska had 399 fires that burned 802,515 acres, well above the 10-year average for both numbers and acres.

21 Arizona Fire Management Division - The Arizona Fire Manage- ment Division is a division of the Arizona State Land Department.

Responsibility The State of Arizona has declared ...The State Forester shall have the authority to prevent and suppress any wildfires on State and private lands located outside incorporated municipali- ties and, if subject to cooperative agreements, on other lands located in this State or in other States, Mexico and Canada (Arizona revised Statute 37-623). The Division has the responsibility to protect 22,447,000 acres of the State.

Protection System The Arizona Fire Management Division maintains Cooperative Intergovernmental Agree- ments or Joint Powers Agreements with various local, state and federal agencies for the response of over 1,000 engine companies to suppress fires under the State’s jurisdiction. There are approximately 250 organized fire departments in the State.

Fire Activity Arizona averages just over 450 wildland fires and burns about 14,000 acres a year. The ten year statistics show that the number of fires have declined over the last ten years. In 1995, they had 796 fires, whereas in 1998, they had about a 50 percent reduction to 396 fires. The annual acreage burned varies from 3,057 acres in 1997 to 630,075 acres in 1995. Miscellaneous is the single most frequent cause at 51 percent of fires, with lightning as the second highest causal rate at 16 percent. An average of 83 percent of fires were contained at under 10 acres with an average size of 1.1 acres. The average size of fires over 10 acres was just under 439 acres.

In Fire Season 2002, Arizona had 530 fires that burned 46,645 acres, well above the 5-year average. Lightning fires were about average and “miscellaneous” continued to be the leading fire cause. The Rodeo-Chediski Fire (468,638 acres) which started on the BIA’s Fort Apache Agency, was the largest fire in Arizona’s recorded history.

22 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection - The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is part of the State’s Resources Agency.

Responsibility The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) is required to protect State and privately owned watershed lands as designated by the State’s Board of Forestry. The law defines watershed lands as...lands covered wholly or in part by forests or by trees producing or capable of producing forest products. Lands covered wholly or in part by timber, brush, undergrowth, or grass, whether of commercial value or not, which protect the soil from excessive erosion, retard runoff of water or accelerate water percolation... Lands in areas which are principally used or useful for range or forage purposes, which are contiguous to the lands described (above) (PRC 4126). The following lands are excluded from State protection...Lands owned or controlled by the federal government or any agency of the federal government. Lands within the exterior boundaries of any city...(PRC 4127). Roughly one-third of the State is classed as “state responsibility area,” or about 31.3 million acres.

The Department directly protects about 27.7 million acres. Some of this acreage includes land managed by the USDA Forest Service, and the USDI Bureau of Land Management. The “state responsibility area” that is not protected by CDF is either protected by various federal agencies or several local fire agencies know as “contract counties.”

The Department has the authority via cooperative agreements, to provide full-service fire protection to cities, counties, and fire districts. Such contracts add an additional 11 million acres to CDF’s direct protection responsibilities.

Protection System The Department fields a force of close to 17,000 firefighters (3,800 full-time fire professionals, foresters, and administrative personnel; 1,400 seasonal firefighters; 5,500 local agency volunteers under CDF control; 2,600 State Volunteers in Prevention; and over 3,800 inmate and ward firefighters). This force of firefighters operate 1,025 engine companies (336 funded by the

23 State, and 689 locally funded and controlled by CDF), 21 airtankers, 10 helicopters, 13 air attack aircraft, 58 initial attack bulldozer companies, and 195 Type 1 fire crews.

Fire Activity California averages just about 6,000 wildland fires and burns about 128,000 acres a year. The five year statistics show that the number of fires in California are fairly consistent from year-to-year.. The annual acreage burned varies from 57,788 acres in 1997 to 277,750 acres in 1999. Equipment use is the single most frequent cause at 37 percent, with miscellaneous as the second highest causal rate at 33 percent. An average of 95 percent of fires are contained at under 10 acres with an average size of 0.47 acres. The average size of fires over 10 acres was 1,250 acres. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection responds to over 290,000 calls for help each year with the vast majority of these calls (51 percent) being for medical assistance.

In Fire Season 2002, California had 5,759 wildfires that burned 112,810 acres, slightly below the 5-year average. That total included five Class G fires, which averaged about 16,000 acres.

The worst fires in California in 2002 were the McNally Fire (150,696 acres) on the Se- quoia National Forest and the Pines Fire (61,690 acres) in the CDF’s San Diego Unit.

24 Colorado State Forest Service - The Colorado State Forest Service is a State agency within the Colorado State University System

Responsibility State of Colorado statutes declare ...It is State policy of this State to prevent and control forest fires on or threatening the forest land of the State (public or private) in order to preserve forest and other natural resources....and prevent loss of life and damage to property from wildfires and other conflagrations (23-30-301). The actual fire suppression action is provided by over 400 fire protection districts, rural fire departments, and sheriff departments.

The responsibility for the suppression of wildland fires is assigned to the Sheriff of each Colorado County. The Sheriff ... in case of any forest or prairie fire, is to assume charge thereof or to assist other governmental authorities in such emergencies for controlling or extinguishing such fires...The State forester may assume the duty with concurrence of the Sheriff (30-10-513).

Protection System The Colorado State Forest Service protects cooperatively with the County Sheriffs approximately 41 million acres of the State. Initial calls go directly to the Sheriff’s Office or an interagency dispatch center. The Colorado State Forest Service may respond with a line officer and may assume control upon mutual agreement of the County Sheriff and the State Forester.

The Colorado State Forest Service provides 140 federal excess property engines to local fire departments and county sheriffs for use in fighting wildland fires. In addition, 16 state- owned engines are available and over 1720 fire department engines are listed on resource forms. The state maintains cooperative agreements with various federal wildland fire agencies, county sheriff departments, and fire departments. The State also maintains a seasonal contract for single engine airtanker(s) that can be used by local firefighters.

Fire Activity Colorado averages just over 2,300 wildland fires that burn just under 82,000 acres a year on State and private land. The five-year statistics show that the number of fires in Colorado has

25 increased since 1999. The annual acreage burned varies significantly from 10,282 acres in 1998 to over 244,000 in 2002. The single most frequent cause of fires reported falls within the miscellaneous category at 52 percent, with debris burning as the second highest causal rate at 17 percent. Containment is reached on average at fewer than 10 acres on 93 percent of the fires, with 0.61 acres being the average size of fires in this category. Fires that grow beyond 10 acres reach an average size of 627 acres.

In Fire Season 2002, Colorado had 3,409 wildfires that burned a total of 244,252 acres, well above the 5-year average. The two largest fires burned a total of over 207,000 acres. There were significantly more lightning fires than normal.

The Hayman Fire (137,760 acres) which started on the Pike National Forest in June 2002 is the largest fire in Colorado’s recorded history.

26 Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife - The Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife is one of nine divisions within the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Responsibility The Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife is responsible to...provide direct fire protection to forest reserves, natural area reserves, public hunting areas, wildlife and plant sanctuar- ies and other lands under the jurisdiction of the Division of Forestry and Wildlife. This encompasses approximately 850,000 acres. The Division has a secondary protection responsibility on 3.3 million acres of other state-owned lands.

Protection System Cooperative agreements are maintained with four local government fire agencies, one on each of the islands (Kauai, Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii). These resources are the first responders and are relied upon for direct fire suppression activities. Cooperative agreements also exist between the U.S. Army Support Command Hawaii, the National Park Service, the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Barking Sands, Kauai and the Nature Conservancy of Hawaii.

Fire Activity Hawaii averages just over 150 wildland fires and burns about 12,000 acres a year. The ten year statistics show that the number of fires in Hawaii is “level,” although the numbers vary considerably. They had only 67 fires in 1997, but over 230 in 1995. The annual acreage burned varies significantly from only 377 acres in 1997 to over 37,000 in 1998. Miscellaneous is the single most frequent cause at 48 percent with arson as the second highest causal rate at 16 percent. An average of 80 percent of fires were contained at under 10 acres with an average size of 1.2 acres. The average size of fires over 10 acres was 694 acres.

This past year, Hawaii had 188 fires that burned 2,377 acres. This is well below the average acres burned.

27 Idaho Department of Lands, Bureau of Fire Management - The IDL Bureau of Fire Management is part of the Department of Lands.

Responsibility The Department of Lands is required to protect State and private forests. The Idaho Forestry Act States; “Any forest or range fire burning out of control...is hereby declared a public nuisance, by reason of its menace to life and/or property. ...The director of the Depart- ment of Lands or any fire warden may summarily abate the nuisance thus constituted by controlling or extinguishing such fire...” (38-107). The Act also states ...every owner of forest land will: (a) provide their own forest fire protection, or (b) join an association of forest landowners to provide forest fire protection, or failing either of the first two options; (c) the director of the Department of Lands will provide the protection (38-111).

Protection System The Department is divided into eleven districts and operates 57 engine companies to protect just over 6 million acres. Staffing is provided with full-time and seasonal employees. There are 170 local government fire departments in Idaho.

Fire Activity Idaho averages about 500 wildland fires and burns about 62,000 acres a year. The ten year statistics show that the number of fires in Idaho is increasing. However, 2000 was an exceptional year when the number of lightning fires were up about 60% and debris burning fires were nearly double the average. The annual acreage burned varies significantly from 533 acres in 1995 to over 142,000 in 2000. Lightning is the single most frequent cause at 49 percent with debris burning as the second highest causal rate at 15 percent. An average of 95 percent of fires were contained at under 10 acres, with an average size of 0.549 acres. The average size of fires over 10 acres was 2,445 acres.

Fire Season 2002 was below average for Idaho, with 386 wildfires burning only 7,972 acres, well below the 5-year average.

28 Kansas Forest Service - The Kansas Forest Service is a state agency within the Kansas State University.

Responsibility The Kansas Forest Service is responsible for ...providing assistance for the prevention and suppression of forest, brush or grassland fires in non-federal areas of the State except on lands within the exterior boundaries of incorporated cities (KSA 76-425A through 76-425F, as amended). This area is approximately 46.4 million acres.

Protection System All of the fire protection on these lands is provided by various rural fire departments and districts. There are 673 fire departments or districts in the State. The Kansas Forest Service maintains cooperative agreements with 506 of them, providing equipment, training and assistance with funding, prevention and planning.

Fire Activity Kansas averages just over 4,700 wildland fires and burns just under 56,000 acres a year. The five year statistics show that the number of fires in Kansas are on a slight rise. The annual acreage burned varied from 31,676 acres in 1998 to over 93,000 acres in 2002. Debris burning is the single most frequent cause at 36 percent. An average of 75 percent of the fires were contained at under 10 acres with an average size of 1.48 acres. The average size of fires over 10 acres was 759 acres.

Fire Season 2002 was about the same as 2000 in Kansas, but not nearly as bad as 1996, when more than 430,000 acres burned. The State had 50 large fires (>300 acres) in 2002. Ten fires burned over 1,000 acres each. The largest, burning 12,000 acres in Greenwood County in April, was the result of improper disposal of hot ashes.

29 Montana DNRC Fire and Aviation Program - The Mon- tana DNRC Fire and Aviation Program is within the Montana Depart- ment of Natural Resources and Conservation, Forestry Division.

Responsibility The State of Montana has declared ...That the Department shall protect the natural resources of the State from fire and that the Department is responsible for fire protection on all forest lands within this State that are officially classified by the Department as forest lands... (MCA 76-13-101 and 103). The Department has declared 5.1 million acres of State and private lands as forested and under their jurisdiction. This includes privately owned forested lands within the boundaries of an incorporated city. Priority is given to the protection of forested lands owned by the State. The State has given the Department a secondary protection for 45.3 million acres of State and privately owned non-forested lands in the State. These lands are predomi- nately found in eastern Montana.

Protection System The Montana DNRC Fire and Aviation Program staffs 65 engine (and water tender) companies and five helicopters to protect the 5.1 million acres. Montana DNRC also loans over 350 engines to local fire agencies, primarily in the eastern part of the State. DNRC is also given the responsibility to coordinate all mutual aid responses of fire department resources that cross county lines.

Fire Activity Montana averages just over 450 wildland fires and burns just under 72,000 acres a year. The five year statistics show that the number of fires in Montana are about level. The annual acreage burned varied from 3,430 acres in 1997 to over 168,744 acres in 2000. Lightning is the single most frequent cause of fires at 48 percent with debris burning as the second highest causal rate at 14 percent.

For Fire Season 2002, Montana had 471 fires that burned 28,811 acres. While the number of fires is even with the 5-year average, the acres burned are less than half.

30 Nebraska Forest Service - The Nebraska Forest Service is part of the University of Nebraska system.

Responsibility The State of Nebraska has given the State Forester powers to “develop and implement plans for the prevention and suppression of forest, brush, and grassland fires on both public and private lands.” This means the Nebraska Forest Service has a secondary protection responsibility for 49,083,520 acres—the entire State.

Protection System Local government provides the protection for the State. The Nebraska Forest Service coordinates training and grant distribution. There are 476 rural fire districts in Nebraska.

Fire Activity Nebraska averages just over 1,300 wildland fires and burns just over 110,000 acres a year. The five year statistics show that the number of fires in Nebraska are on a slight increase. The annual acreage burned varied from 17,230 acres in 2001 to over 252,000 acres in 2000. Debris burning is the second most frequent cause at 26 percent with miscellaneous as the highest causal rate at 30 percent. An average of 77 percent of fires were contained at under 10 acres with an average size of 1.34 acres. The average size of fires over 10 acres was 694 acres.

In Fire Season 2002, Nebraska had 1,835 fires that burned 90,562 acres. This is a high level of occurrence, but the acreage burned was below average despite five Class G fires.

31 Nevada Division of Forestry - The Nevada Division of Forestry is a division of the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

Responsibility Nevada statute mandates the State Forester Firewarden to ...administer all fire control laws and all forestry laws in Nevada outside of township boundaries. In addition to providing fire protection to State and privately owned lands, “the State Forester Firewarden is also mandated to “assist and encourage county or local fire protection districts to create legally constituted fire protection districts where they are needed and offer guidance and advice in their operation. A change in the boundaries of a fire protection district, including withdrawals of any portion, may be denied by the State Forester Firewarden if he determines such change will impair or affect it’s organization, or affect, impair, or discharge any contract, obligation, lien, or charge on which it might be liable or chargeable had such change of boundaries not been made.” Since the Division derives some of it’s funding from property taxes, the level of protection it is obligated to provide is the same as that of a municipal fire department. The Division has direct protection responsibility for 9,501,784 acres of the State, and coordination responsibilities for an additional 17,433,631 acres. The Division responds to over 3,000 calls for help each year, with over half of them being medical aids or assistance to other agencies.

Protection System The Nevada Division of Forestry employees approximately 230 full-time personnel including 123 personnel within the fire program and an additional 40 seasonal employees. There are approximately 600 volunteer fire department members for which the Division pays industrial insurance coverage. The Division also cooperates closely with the 1,511 volunteer/career and volunteer fire departments throughout the State. The Division has a close working arrangement with the Department of Corrections to operate 77 twelve-person conservations crews plus one conservation crew specifically assigned to helitack. The Division maintains an insured fleet of nearly 600 vehicles. This fleet includes 185 engines, 39 water tenders and five bulldozers. The Division operates two helicopters, as well as one fixed wing aircraft.

32 Fire Activity Nevada averages just under 230 wildland fires and burns over 23,000 acres a year. The five year statistics show that the number of fires in Nevada are fairly constant. The annual acreage burned varied from 418 acres in 1997 to over 87,000 acres in 2000. Debris burning is the most frequent cause at 30 percent, with miscellaneous second at 29 percent. An average of 90 percent of the fires were contained at under 10 acres with an average size of 1.0 acres. The average size of fires over 10 acres was 1,580 acres.

For Fire Season 2002, Nevada had 269 fires that burned only 2,833 acres, well below their 5-year average.

33 New Mexico State Forestry Division - The New Mexico State Forestry Division is a division of the New Mexico Department of Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources.

Responsibility The State of New Mexico has declared ...The State shall have the responsibility for prevention and suppression of forest fires on all non-federal, non-municipal lands in the State (68-2- 8). The Division has the responsibility to protect 42.5 million acres of the State.

Protection System The Division maintains Cooperative Intergovernmental Agreements or Joint Powers Agreements with 230 county fire departments and 60 municipal fire departments and reim- burses them for wildland fire suppression services. There are approximately 359 organized fire departments in the State. The Division maintains numerous Joint Powers Agreements with various state and federal agencies

Fire Activity New Mexico averages about 800 wildland fires and burns just over 160,000 acres a year. The five year statistics show that the number of fires in New Mexico is highly variable. The annual acreage burned varied from 39,849 acres in 2001 to over 376,000 acres in 2000. Light- ning is the single most frequent cause at 36 percent and miscellaneous is the second highest causal rate at 30 percent. An average of 69 percent of the fires were contained at under 10 acres with the average size of 1.5 acres. The average size of fires over 10 acres was 146 acres.

New Mexico had 794 fires that burned 226,492 acres in Fire Season 2002. This is about average for number of fires and about 40% more than the average acres. Six Class G fires burned 100,876 acres.

34 North Dakota Forest Service - The North Dakota Forest Service is a division of North Dakota State University.

Responsibility The State of North Dakota has declared ...The State Forester is specifically authorized to apply for, receive, and expend federal grants-in-aid and matching funds for fire protection services, and generally aid rural fire departments and rural fire protection districts with all activities customary in the prevention and suppression of forest, brush, and grassland fires. The State Forester has the responsibility to coordinate the wildland fire protection in North Dakota.

Protection System There are 388 fire departments or fire districts in the State. They are responsible for the suppression of all fires on State or privately owned lands. The North Dakota Forest Service maintains cooperative agreements with 384 fire departments and fire districts.

Fire Activity North Dakota averages over 500 wildland fires and burns nearly 66,000 acres a year. The five year statistics show that the number of fires in North Dakota are on the rise. The annual acreage burned varied from nearly 167,000 acres in 2002 to a low of 6,504 acres in 2001. Miscellaneous is the second most frequent cause at 21 percent with debris burning as the highest causal rate at 40 percent. An average of 83 percent of the fires were contained at less than 10 acres with an average fire size of 1.59 acres. The average size of fires over 10 acres was 398 acres.

For Fire Season 2002, North Dakota had 325 fires that burned 29,565 acres. This is below the 5-year average, and less than one-half the acreage burned in 1999.

35 Oregon Department of Forestry - The Oregon Department of Forestry works under the direction of the State Board of Forestry whose members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The State Forester in turn is appointed by a seven person Board.

Responsibility The State of Oregon has declared that it is the responsibility of the individual forest landowners to protect their land from wildland fires. The landowner has three alternative ways of providing this protection: (1) they can provide for the direct protection themselves; (2) they can join a nonprofit association that will provide for the protection; or (3) they can allow the State to provide the protection. In all cases, the Board of Forestry must approve of the method of protection.

There are about 13.6 million acres of private and state-owned forested lands in the State. No landowner has elected to protect their own lands, but many have joined one of the three protection associations. These associations protect about 2.3 million acres of the 13.6 million acres of private forest and State lands. Each landowner is assessed a fee to provide protection.

Protection System The Department of Forestry and the three associations employ 162 permanent and 500 seasonal personnel to provide fire protection. They operate 228 engines, 14 initial attack bulldozer units, 19 ten-person handcrews (inmates), 2 aircraft and contract for 2 single engine airtankers.

Fire Activity Oregon has averaged over the last five years about 1,079 fires that burn about 35,169 acres. The 5-year statistics show that the number of fires is very slowly increasing, however, the number of human caused fires, on a per capita basis, is falling. The leading cause is lighting (29%), with debris burning second (21%).

For Fire Season 2002, Oregon had 1,175 fires that burned 99,047 acres. The number of fires is slightly above average and the number of acres burned is significantly above average. There were fewer lightning fires and more debris burning fires in 2002. The Biscut Fire (499,570 acres) on the Siskiyou National Forest burned nearly the entire Kamiopsis Wilderness and was one of the largest fires in recent Oregon history.

36 South Dakota Wildland Fire Suppression Division - The South Dakota Wildland Fire Suppression Division is a division of the State’s Department of Agriculture.

Responsibility “The State of South Dakota has declared under 41-20-1.1. Employment of state wildland fire coordinator — Qualifications and general authority: The Department of Agriculture may employ a state wildland fire coordinator who shall be qualified for and authorized to carry out all wildfire suppression activities.”

The Division is directly responsible for the protection of 949,117 acres of State and privately owned forested lands and has secondary protection of over 47 million acres of non- forested lands.

Protection System The South Dakota Wildland Fire Suppression Division employs 19 full-time employees and 18 seasonal firefighters who operate 18 state-owned engines and water tenders. The State maintains cooperative agreements with various local, State, and federal agencies to work cooperatively to suppress wildland fires regardless of land ownership. The Division has signed agreements with various rural fire departments covering the dispatch of 440 engine companies located primarily in the Black Hills area. There are 364 organized rural fire departments in the State.

Fire Activity South Dakota averages 674 wildland fires and burns just over 140,000 acres a year. The five-year statistics show that the number of fires in South Dakota is increasing. The majority of the fires reported occurred in the Black Hills area of western South Dakota. Lightning is the single most frequent cause of fires at 24 percent with debris burning as the second highest causal rate at 23 percent. An average of 67 percent of fires were contained at less than 10 acres.

In Fire Season 2002, South Dakota had 725 fires that burned 166,928 acres. They had 5 Class G fires that burned more than 94,000 acres.

37 Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands - The Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands is part of the Depart- ment of Natural Resources.

Responsibility The Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands is responsible to determine and execute the best methods for protecting private and public lands by preventing and suppressing fires on non-federally owned forest, range, and watershed lands in unincorporated areas of the state. There are approximately 15 million acres of private, State and other lands which fall in the State’s area of responsibility.

Protection System The Division employs district fire wardens who manage initial attack throughout the State. Rural fire departments are used extensively in the initial attack role, along with State and federal resources in closest forces system. The State, through a number of agencies, maintains suppression resources and management personnel to manage suppression operations that escape initial attack. They utilize suppression tactics and strategies that match the suppression effort with the values at risk. Where and when possible, fire is allowed to play its natural role in the environment commiserate with public and firefighter safety, property and resource values. Close cooperative relations exist with all counties, other State agencies and the federal fire agencies to provide suppression resources for use inside and outside the State.

Fire Activity Utah averages over 700 wildland/urban interface fires and burns approximately 68,000 acres of private and State lands each year. Acres burned varies from a low of 12,000 to over 178,000 in a single season. On average, 50 percent of fires are human-caused. In the 2002 Fire Season, Utah had 613 fires that burned about 68,524 acres of private and State lands. Statisti- cally, Utah had an average season; however, due to several large fires in remote parts of the State, 2002 was the most expensive fire season in history. Over $19 million was spent to suppress fire on private and State land.

38 Washington Department of Natural Resources, Resource Protection Division - The Washington DNR Forest Fire Control Program is under the Commissioner of Public Lands, an elected official.

Responsibility The Washington DNR Forest Fire Control Program is responsible for the protection of all private and state forest lands. It also provides protection for lands that are adjacent to or intermingled with forest lands in eastern Washington. Responsibility is authorized under Washington RCW 76.04. Under cooperative agreement the Department also protects 15,000 acres of USDI Fish and Wildlife Service lands, 7,000 acres of USDI Bureau of Land Management lands, and 226,000 acres for the USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs. Total area protected is approximately 12.5 million acres.

Protection System The Department staffs 114 initial attack engine companies, two 20-person crews, and 3 helicopters. Of the 1,200 permanent personnel, 350 are fireline rated. An additional 350 seasonal firefighters are hired yearly. In addition, the Department contracts for one airtanker to supplement it’s initial attack suppression forces, and during critical periods, they can utilize up to 400 inmates from the State correctional system in handcrews. Mutual aid agreements are maintained with over 350 local government fire departments to supplement initial attack operations. There are 560 local government fire departments in Washington.

Fire Activity Washington averages 850 wildland fires and burns an average of 13,000 acres a year. The five-year statistics show that the number of fires in Washington are declining just slightly. Annual acreage burned varied from 4,650 acres in 1997 to 23,511 acres in 1998. Miscellaneous is the single most frequent cause at 27 percent with debris burning as the second highest causal rate at 25 percent. An average of 95 percent of the fires were contained at under 10 acres with an average fire size of 0.62 acres. The average size of fires over 10 acres was 584 acres.

In Fire Season 2002, Washington had 889 fires that burned 10,063 acres; above average for number of fires, but below for numbers of acres.

39 Wyoming State Forestry Division - The Wyoming State For- estry Division is a division under the Director of the Office of State Lands and Investments.

Responsibility The State of Wyoming has declared ...The State Forester shall take such action as may be deemed necessary by the State Board of Land Commissioners, to protect forest, range, and other rural resources from fire. This responsibility shall in no way diminish the responsibility or authority of local fire protection districts (State statute 36-2-108(b)(i). The Division has the responsibility to protect 3.6 million acres of State owned lands. Most of the State lands are scattered (checkerboard) throughout the State. The Division also has the coordinating responsibility on an additional 27.1 million acres of privately owned rural lands.

Protection System The Division maintains the Wyoming Interagency Cooperative Fire Protection Agreement with all 23 counties in the State and the various federal land management agencies, for the response of over 4,000 volunteer firefighters and over 1,000 engine companies to suppress fires under the State’s jurisdiction. Approximately 425 of the locally operated engines have been obtained through the Federal Excess Property Program. The agreement authorizes the exchange of resources, dollars and other pre-suppression activities. There are approximately 172 organized fire departments in Wyo- ming.

Fire Activity Wyoming averages 647 (State and private) wildland fires and burns an average of 129,000 acres a year. The five year statistics show that the number of fires in Wyoming are on the increase. The annual acreage burned varied from 18,414 acres in 2001 to 358,648 acres in 2000. Lightning is the single most frequent cause at 30 percent with miscellaneous as the second highest causal rate at 23 percent. An average of 83 percent of fires were contained at under 10 acres with an average fire size of 1.15 acres. The average size of fires over 10 acres was 2,741 acres.

In Fire Season 2002, Wyoming had 815 fires that burned 163,226 acres, above the 5-year average. Fire Season 2002 saw only half as many Class G fires and half as many acres burned in Wyoming as in 2000.

40 Suppression Policies - Fire Management vs. Fire Control

Wildland fire protection in the West can be undertaken with any one of a variety of suppression policies, depending on the location and burning conditions of the fire, the mission of the fire protection jurisdiction responsible for suppression, and the land management policies of the landowner.

Much of the wildland in the West is managed by one of the five big federal land manage- Most wildfires are suppressed; some ment agencies. Usually, but not always, the federal agency that manages the land also is the are managed. agency with fire protection jurisdiction. In this situation, wildland fires are frequently managed (not necessarily suppressed) to achieve results in support of the agency’s land management plan. Three examples best illustrate the most common of these situations:

• A lightning fire in the high country of a national park burning under normal weather conditions may be allowed to burn while only being monitored by NPS personnel, as fire is a natural part of the landscape and NPS seeks to avoid human intervention (and damages) in the natural environment. If the fire grows too large, burns too intensely, or threatens improvements, the Park Service may decide to take suppression action. Otherwise, the fire may be allowed to burn itself out.

• An unplanned ignition in a part of a national forest where hazard reduction, type conver- sion, etc. is part of an approved management plan may be managed to achieve specific land management objectives. Forest Service personnel may use indirect attack methods and back off to natural or man-made barriers some distance from the fire, achieving containment of the wildfire, but allowing it to burn at appropriate intensity in a watershed, cut block, or other land management unit where fire is an integral part of the approved management plan.

• A fire burning on a military firing range may not be suppressed, but allowed to burn itself out to preplanned firebreaks, as entry into an area containing unexpended munitions would be hazardous to firefighters.

41 Other fires on federal lands during the normal fire season will usually be suppressed by the agency with direct protection responsibility, as they usually start in the wrong place, burn with too much intensity or speed to meet land management criteria, or threaten improvements or other properties.

Most other wildland fire protection in the West is provided either by state forestry agencies, forest protective associations or by local government fire protection districts. In most cases these agencies are providing fire protection to lands owned or managed by someone else, so Most wildland fire protection in the they lack the authority to make a decision about the use of fire on the landscape and operate West is provided by either a state or under a policy of immediate, direct suppression of all wildfires. These same agencies may very federal agency. well assist landowners in conducting prescribed burns for hazard reduction and land management purposes, but an unplanned wildfire is treated as a public nuisance and controlled as soon as practicable. In some cases, upon consultation with a landowner and a determination that the risks and cost-benefit ratios are appropriate, these wildland agencies may manage a fire to help the landowner (and the agency) achieve a specific goal, especially when this may reduce suppression costs. In some cases, a contained wildfire may be turned over to the landowner to monitor or extinguish, especially on large properties where the owner (e.g. rancher, timber company) has adequate private resources to maintain control of the fire.

Complications A complicating factor arises when fire protection duties are delegated by the agency or jurisdiction to another agency for economic or operational reasons. For example, in some parts of the West, portions of a national forest may receive direct fire protection service from the state forestry agency, while the FS may protect private lands within the forest, saving each agency money. In Southwestern Or- egon, BLM manages a great deal of timberland broken up into one section blocks intermixed with private property protected by the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). Since BLM does not wish to provide fire protection to private lands and it would be impractical for BLM to duplicate the existing ODF protection system, BLM contracts with ODF to provide fire protection to the public lands. BLM personnel still manage the land, plan and execute prescribed burns, serve on fire management teams, etc., but ODF is the primary provider of wildland fire protection services to the public, as well as the adjacent private lands (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Thinning in Ponderosa Pine plantaion in Oregon.

42 In recent years, in more and more parts of the West, the opportunity to manage a wildfire using an indirect suppression strategy has disappeared due to increased development and population growth in the wildlands. A thousand acres of forest near any metropolitan area may well have a hundred or more Unified command gives each agency a landowners, each with his/her voice in the fire suppression own values, priorities, and plans for the land. The fire agencies operation. cannot put themselves in the position of refereeing conflicts between landowners or other Figure 5. Rural interface condition; regrowth of brush in thinned pine plantation in Oregon. Note houses on slope in background. special interest groups, and therefore put the fire out first, and “ask questions later”. Any wildfire may soon threaten somebody else’s property, structures, water rights, viewshed, etc. and thus needs to be contained or controlled on the property of origin whenever possible (Figure 5).

This is where conflicts between the values, missions, policies, and procedures of the various wildland fire agencies can get in the way of true interagency cooperation. When fire management personnel from an area where jurisdiction always means suppression responsibility go to a fire in an area with interagency protection agreements and operating plans, they need to take the time to understand the roles of the various players.

Opportunities Frequently in the West, it may be appropriate for a state/local team to manage a federal fire, or for a federal team to manage a state fire. In either case, the teams have to forget about their parent agency’s policies and procedures, and adopt the policies and procedures of the agency they are working for. When a major fire involves more than one jurisdiction, the fire management team must involve the administrators and chief officers of all the other jurisdictional agencies in a true Unified Command. On a large fire, it may well be that the FS, BLM,

43 State forestry agency, and one or more local fire protection districts all need to be directly involved in both planning and executing the suppression strategy. When multiple large fires occur, the Multi-Agency Coordinating System (MACS) needs to be used; with decision makers from all involved protection agencies jointly establishing priorities and allocating scarce resources.

Sometimes agency administrators (line officers) who are not fully cognizant of the applicable interagency agreements and operating plans, lack experience and/or understand their responsibilities MACS should set priorities and in fire operations. Fire management teams need to work closely with administrators to assure that allocate scarce resources. conflicting policies, missions, or values do not get in the way of taking appropriate suppression action in a timely manner. It may be appropriate for a district ranger to mull over the potential to scoop up rare and endangered trout in a fire helicopter’s water bucket, but not at the moment that the fire is threatening to burn “Joe Taxpayer’s” ranch (Figure 6).

Conflicting policies, missions, and values will always exist in the wildlands. It is incumbent upon the fire management personnel of all agencies to recognize and mitigate these conflicts before, not during, the fire. Clear, comprehensive Figure 6. Selective logging, slash treated, ready for broadcast burning interagency agreements and in Oregon. operating plans, and adequate training for appropriate decision-makers can help insure that fires get managed or controlled in the most effective way, rather than burn unchecked while turf battles rage.

44 The Fire Environment

Every one of us must be concerned with the state of our natural environment. In any discussion about impacts on the environment, we need also to factor in what the economic and social factors are. You can never hope for success if this is not done. If these three very important factors in our society are discussed as stand alone issues, there will never be a solution to our problems. Environmental ecology includes Warming Trends economic and social factors, not just For some years now, scientists, naturalists, politicians, and other alarmists have been flora and fauna. worrying aloud about the phenomenon of global warming and its possible consequences for humankind. The thinking is that “greenhouse gases”, especially carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuels combustion, are modifying our atmosphere in such a way that the average tempera- ture of the whole world is increasing. Various studies show that this warming (up to 2 degrees F) of average temperatures can lead to significant changes in our ecosystems, some of which could be disastrous.

For example, some predict the melting of the polar icecaps and mountain glaciers could raise sea level enough to permanently flood coastal cities worldwide that are home to millions of people. Meteorologists predict that “normal” weather patterns will change, transforming rain forests to deserts and tundra to tropical forest. Scientists claim that boreal forests are marching northward, deserts are expanding, rivers and lakes are shrinking, and this is only the beginning of even greater change.

Whether directly related to global warming, or just an anomaly of our statistical data base, it seems like severe drought conditions are becoming more common in recent years. Some blame “El Nino”, the warm water pool, or “La Nina”, the cold water pool, in the central Pacific Ocean, for disrupting normal storm tracking patterns into the U.S. Three consecutive “El Nino” winters have pushed the jet stream to the north, with fewer wet storms reaching the U.S. What- ever the cause, widespread drought conditions have contributed to greatly increased fire danger throughout the country in the last several years.

45 Major wildfires have occurred in places like New York, New Jersey, and Florida in recent years. These places normally have enough moisture year round to keep fire danger relatively low, compared to normal summer conditions in much of the arid West.

In 2002, almost half of the USA suffered moderate to extreme drought conditions. Much of the eastern seaboard, from Maryland to Alabama suffered drought that withered crops and depleted local domestic water supplies. The southwestern U.S. was particularly hard hit, as the In 2002, almost half of the USA extreme drought centered on the “Four Corners” region continued into its fifth year. This spring suffered moderate to extreme was the driest on record (107 years) in Colorado and the second driest in Arizona and Southern California. drought conditions. Some of the effects of this severe drought in the West are easy to spot: “bathtub” rings around major reservoirs, increased insect and disease outbreaks in forests, streams reduced to trickles, and brush going dormant or dying back. In Arizona, bark beetle infestations have killed 25-30% of the Ponderosa Pine forest in the Flagstaff area. In the surrounding lower elevations covered with Pinyon-Juniper forest, nearly all of the Pinyon Pine has died.

Some of the effects are less obvious: reduced food and water sources stress many species of wildlife, but won’t be apparent until winter die off counts are in. The migration of everything from deer and elk to butterflies can be disrupted when food sources whither. Golden Trout gasp in stagnant pools of warm water. Then things get worse.

Forest Health The huge wildfires that ravaged the West in 2000 were thought to be the result of an unusual set of circumstances (drought + weather + lightning) that would not be repeated for many years. Fire season 2002 proved that theory held as little water as some western lakes.

The forests of the West today are overstocked compared to pre-settlement forests. Many more individual trees compete for sunlight, nutrients, water, and growing space on each acre of ground. The trees are smaller, closer together, and slower growing than they should be. When conditions turn marginal, the weaker trees die as nature tries to balance the population with the carrying capacity of the forest (Figure 7).

The extended drought, global warming, and years of exclusion of fire from the forests have created unusually high fuel volumes that allow wildfires to burn with great intensity, frequently

46 well beyond the capabilities of fire suppression forces. The fuel available to today’s wildfires consists of years of accumulated logging slash, dead trees killed by insects and disease, highly flammable brush species that provide “ladder fuels” for fire to travel into the crowns of the trees, and non-native grasses that are highly flammable and promote the easy ignition and rapid spread of new fires. Overstocked, decadent forests mean larger, more intensive wildfires. Most brush species have adapted to drought conditions by Figure 7. Untreated Ponderosa Pine Forest in Arizona. decreasing the ratio of live to dead material in each plant, which makes them more flammable. Additionally, many brush species go into a dormant condition during times of heat or drought stress, decreasing the plant’s live fuel moisture to the critical level.

In the pre-settlement era, frequent small, low intensity fires, usually caused by lightning, but some ignited by Native Americans, created forests of larger trees, spread farther apart, eliminated dead and dying trees, reduced the population of insects, and kept down the invasive of brush. That forest was open and park like, with many open spaces, facilitating travel for man and beast alike. Beginning in the mid 1800’s intense logging activity created large accumulations of dead and down woody materials. Random burning of logging slash without regard for fire intensity and post fire effects allowed increased invasion of brush and weed species, many non-native virulent pests capable of out competing native vegetation. This cut and burn mentality lasted up until “The Big Blow Up of 1910”, when massive wildfires destroyed more than 10 million acres, dozens of towns, and killed hundreds of people.

Prescribed Fire Following the fires of 1910, public policy changed to require immediate suppression of wildfires and to severely curtail controlled burns. In the fifty years that followed, federal and

47 state forestry agencies developed fire suppression capabilities that have largely excluded fire from most of our forest lands. While some blame a “Smokey Bear Mentality” for excluding fire from the forests, other factors are also responsible. Foresters have long recognized the need for fire to reduce fuel loading, recycle nutrients, and reduce competition from undesirable species. The problem has been that society has placed restraints on the use of controlled burns (AKA prescribed fire). The backlash of public opinion against commercial logging has made thinning of the forest for hazard reduction very difficult to accomplish. Air pollution concerns limit the amount of burning that can be accomplished in a given area within a given timeframe to uneconomical project sizes. Lastly, and probably most importantly, the fear of liability (i.e. tort claims and civil suits) coinciding with the proliferation of trial lawyers, has made it very risky for most landowners to attempt to use fire to restore forest health.

The situation we now face is that we need to reintroduce frequent, low intensity fires into the forest ecosystems, but are prevented from doing so by the accumulation of fuel, the tangle of red tape, and the fear of liability and conflicting public opinion.

Restoration Recipes Because of the increased stand density, the accumulation of fuels, the presence of highly flammable brush species that serve as ladder fuels promoting crown fires, the effects of drought, and the exposure of neighboring properties it is not possible to control burn the modern forest without extensive preparation.

Thinning of overstocked timber stands is the first step in the process of restoring forest health. In most cases, logging and the sale of the wood products is the only way to make forest health restoration projects even marginally cost- effective. Following a thinning cut, the slash needs to be treated to reduce its height and surface-to-volume ratio to make it safe to burn. This can be done mechanically with machines such as the Slashbuster or Hydroaxe, or manually by crews that lop and pile the slash for burning under benign conditions. Only when the stand has been thinned, the slash treated, the brush crushed, control lines established, permits obtained, and forces organized can prescribed fire projects be safely conducted (Figures 8, 9, and 10).

Figure 8. Commercial thinning cut with slash piled and burned in Arizona.

48 Restoring forest health is a complicated issue with many potential roadblocks on the path to success. Only with public understanding and support, interagency cooperation, appropriate funding levels, and protection from liability can fire be used effectively in its appro- Figure 9. Creating openings in pine forest in Arizona. Note slash piled Figure 10. Low intensity fires like this are very beneficial to the priate environmen- for burning in background. health of the forests. tal role. Only with prescribed fire can forest health be reasonably restored on a landscape scale to the forests of the West (Figures 11 and 12).

Figure 11. Treated pine slash ready for burning in Arizona. Figure 12. Pine trees thinned, slash piled for burning in Arizona.

49 Values at Risk

The federal land agencies are adamant that it is not their responsibility to pay for protection of structures threatened by encroaching wildfires originating on federal lands, because the responsibility for protecting structures falls to the state or local governments.Compounding the problem are conflicting federal policies: FireWise guidelines advise against building homes in Fire management priorities: high fire hazard wildland areas; FEMA provides low-interest loans to homeowners whose 1. Human health and safety; houses have been destroyed by wildfire so they can rebuild in the same area. Local govern- 2. Critical Watersheds/Resources/ ments are reluctant to adopt stringent FireSafe regulations that would reduce fire threats to Communities; structures, but look to the state and federal governments to provide, or at least fund, structure 3. Natural Resources/Individual protection during wildfires. Homes There are three significant categories of values at risk during a wildfire:

• Human health and safety - Human health and safety are threatened by wildfires, both directly (being burned) and indirectly (air pollution), and since wildfires can threaten large numbers of people, this is also an issue of broad public concern. Because poor forest health means more fuel available, wildfires have been growing more intense, difficult to control, and dangerous to firefighters. In recent years, there have been more firefighter deaths and injuries, resulting in a trend to put firefighter safety above all other values at risk, with sometimes unintended consequences.

• Natural resources - The natural resources on public lands belong to all citizens and are therefore of broad public concern. Some of the natural resource values at risk during a wildfire are timber, forage, wildlife, soil, water, and recreation. The natural resources on private lands have public as well as private value and are also of broad public concern. Some public values at risk of wildfire on private lands are timber, wildlife, soil, water, and recreation. In other words, the public at large reaps benefits from healthy forests in private ownership. This concept has been the basis for some states to take an active role in wildfire protection. Unfortunately, due to several factors, the forests of America are overcrowded, decadent, and capable of supporting unusually intense forest fires that do even greater damage to the natural resources. Forest health should be a concern to everyone.

50 • Property - Property includes land and human improvements upon the land, which may be in both public and private ownership. The loss of a single home in a forest fire is a matter primarily of concern to the property owner and the insurance company. The loss of many houses in a single community is a matter of concern to the whole community; as such losses have psychological, physical, emotional, and economic effects on all residents. If a large number of structures are lost, it will have an impact on the community’s infrastructure. A classic example of a public value at risk and inadvertent damages occurred this year in Colorado, where the Hayman Fire wiped out hundreds of homes. In one local fire district so many homes were lost that the district lost 75-80% of its assessed valuation and had to lay off firefighters and medics. The remaining residents have suffered a reduction in The loss of a single home is a tragedy fire protection and emergency medical services as a result of a wildfire originating on for the homeowner; the loss of federal land. This reduction in service will also discourage more burned out residents from hundreds of homes is a loss for the rebuilding. This small community may never recover. The loss of hundreds of homes in a community. single wildfire, or thousands of homes in the nation each fire season, should be a matter of concern to all Americans due to the direct costs of fire suppression and disaster reimbursement, plus the indirect costs of air pollution, economic disruption, post-fire flood events, water quality degradation, etc.

Until very recently these values at risk from wildfires were not given the same priorities by the different levels of government. The federal wildfire agencies, being also land management agencies, put natural resource protection as their first priority. Local governments, being funded in large measure by property taxes, put structure protection as their first priority. State forestry and emergency management agencies frequently found themselves in the middle, being concerned about public safety, property (e.g. tax base) loss, natural resource degradation (especially on state lands), and the cost of post-fire rehabilitation and damage control (floods, etc.).

As the population has grown and people have acquired the fiscal and physical ability to commute to their work, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of homes being built in or adjacent to the wildlands. These homes in the woods have created what has come to be termed the wildland/urban interface. Here the fire problem is compounded, as homes are at risk from wildfires and forests are at risk from human activity in and near their residences. The wildland/urban interface fire problem, once confined to southern California, is now significant in almost every western state and getting worse each year. This year, wildfires in Colorado threatened more than 140 subdivisions and forced the evacuation of more than 80,000 residents.

51 These improvements and human activities in/near the wildland have changed the nature of fire fighting. When wildland was uninhabited, firefighters could choose their place to battle a fire, usually at a ridge top, stream, road, or other existing barrier to fire spread where conditions favored firefighting operations. Frequently, there was room to back off until burning conditions moderated and it was easier to control the fire. Increasingly these days, firefighters must go after a wildfire immediately, under all conditions, as there are probably homes or other improvements nearby that are immediately in danger. This need to fight fire on the fire’s terms makes firefighting more dangerous and more expensive.

As the wildland/urban interface has grown, the cost of fighting wildfires has risen dramati- FireSafe homes have ignition-resis- cally. Much of this cost increase is due to the additional fire engines, aircraft, and overhead that tant roofs and adequate clearance. are needed to protect improvements in front of the fire, often far in front of the fire, and often for days on end. This dramatic increase in cost has concerned government officials, leading to such counterproductive federal actions as failing to take appropriate structure protection measures, refusing to pay for the costs of structure protection, etc. The high point of irresponsibility on the structure protection issue was probably reached in 2002, when the Office of Management and Budget noted that it was “cheaper to let the houses burn and pay the cost of rebuilding than to protect them from wildfire.” Only a “bean counter” could ignore the fact that the most important things to most families cannot be replaced when their home burns.

Taking Responsibility Who then is really responsible for protecting structures in the wildland/urban interface from encroaching wildfires? The answer is nearly everybody.

First, property owners in the wildland/urban interface must assume responsibility to provide an appropriate measure of built-in fire protection for their improvements. The two most important features to the survival of a structure threatened by a wildfire are ignition-resistant construction and defensible space. Roofing materials that are ignition-resistant prevent falling firebrands from igniting a structure and help prevent fire spread from structure to structure, which is a major cause of fire transmission in large structure loss wildfires.

52 Defensible space or clearance provides an area around each structure where vegetation has been managed to decrease fire intensity enough to prevent spread to the structure and to provide an area safe for firefighters to work in. These two measures, tailored to the local fire danger, could dramatically reduce structure loss. Individuals, communities, and all levels of government need to be responsible Second, the community as a whole must assume responsibility for protecting itself. This for wildland fire safety. includes applying peer pressure to property owners who fail to make their properties FireSafe. It means taking voluntary joint action to mitigate what one property owner is not able to do. It means taking actions to improve fire safety by adopting appropriate regulations on development, building and maintaining fire defense improvements, forming, joining, and supporting local fire departments, and teaching FireSafe principles to the next generation.

Third, local government needs to assume responsibility for appropriate fire prevention and suppression measures. This means adopting planning and development regulations that promote fire safety, requiring built-in fire protection measures in the wildland/urban interface, and providing an appropriate level of fire protection service. It includes developing a system of fire defense improvements such as water systems, helispots, fuelbreaks, firebreaks, access roads, and safety zones. It means adopting strict street sign and house addressing regulations. It means properly equipping and training the local fire department to safely and efficiently fight wildfires and protect structures in the wildland/urban interface. It means developing automatic aid and mutual aid agreements with neighboring jurisdictions.

Fourth, state governments need to assume responsibility for an appropriate level of fire protection on non-federal wildlands, especially in the wildland/urban interface. This can be done in a variety of ways, on both state and private lands. The state can manage its own lands in a manner that will assure healthy forests with lower fire danger. Properly managed State lands can serve as demonstration areas for FireSafe and forest health improvement measures. The State can assume a coordination role to facilitate joint cooperative FireWise/FireSafe projects between all levels of government and the private sector. The State can sponsor FireSafe education programs and provide model ordinances or regulations to assure an appropriate minimum

53 level of fire safety statewide. States can support and coordinate an efficient statewide mutual aid system and can assume full responsibility for primary fire protection on non-federal wildlands, thus reducing jurisdictional problems and avoiding widely variant levels of fire protection.

Last, the federal government needs to assume responsibility for an appropriate level of fire protection on federal lands. This includes improving forest health and reducing fire hazards, especially in the wildland/urban interface. It means providing leadership and funding to support the efforts of state and local governments to reduce fire danger and improve fire protection in the wildland/urban interface, especially near federal wildlands. It means eliminating conflicting Improved forest health is key to the federal policies like subsidizing rebuilding structures already lost to fire in high hazard areas. It survivability of our forests. means giving due consideration to values at risk from wildfire, both public and private, on lands adjacent to federal wildlands. It means adopting land management and fire protection policies and procedures that appropriately prioritize wildfire threats to natural resources, human health and safety, and property. It means training its administrators and fire managers to recognize off- forest values at risk from wildfire and to take actions appropriate to the best overall public interest rather than to their particular agency program.

Because wildfires are a threat to a broad range of public values and interests, it is impera- tive that the broadest possible range of publics assume an appropriate level of responsibility for wildfire prevention, control, and mitigation.

54 National Fire Plan

Fire Season 2000 in the West saw more than 8 million acres and hundreds of structures burn as wildfires roamed from the backcountry of the National Forests to the main streets of cities like Los Alamos, and fire suppression costs soared. Following this landmark season, a special report to the Presi- dent, entitled Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communi- ties and the Environment became the focal point for the federal government to take broad and far reaching actions to both reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and improve fire preven- The National Fire Plan infused much tion and suppression capabilities, especially in the Wildland/ needed funding into the federal Urban Interface. wildland fire agencies. Starting in 2001, a new federal wildland fire policy was issued that was aimed at ensuring consistency, coordination, and integration of wildland fire management programs throughout all agencies of the federal government. The new policy focused on principles such as giving firefighter and public safety first priority, recognizing the role of wildfire in natural ecosystems, integrating fire management and other land management programs, improving the economic viability of fire protection systems, using appropriate science as the basis for planning, and coordinating with other levels of government. Seventeen basic policy statements were to be incorporated into the directives, manuals, and training systems of every federal agency involved in wildland fire protection.

That same year, Congress appropriated an additional $1.6 billion to begin implementation of the new fire policy and directed the secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to develop a long- term strategy (National Fire Plan) to deal with wildland fires and mitigate hazardous fuel situations. This strategy, A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment; 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy (often short- ened to “The Strategy”), was completed in August 2001.

55 The goals of The Strategy are:

• Improve Fire Prevention and Suppression

• Reduce Hazardous Fuels

• Restore Fire-Adapted Ecosystems

• Promote Community Assistance A ten-year plan has been developed. An Implementation Plan for The Strategy was completed in May of 2002 and endorsed by the federal agencies and their partners, including state forestry agencies and tribal governments. The plan should improve cooperation and communication among all parties at all levels and help insure that key project planning decisions are made at the local level. It also establishes responsibility among the participants for planning, prioritizing, and accomplish- ing tasks in a timely and cost-effective manner consistent with changing conditions and relevant science. See the Appendix for a more detailed look at the components of the National Fire Plan, including state funding data.

One of the significant outcomes of the new effort was the FireWise program. Sponsored by a consortium of federal agencies with a good deal of cooperator involvement, this program was focused on increasing awareness of the Wildland/Urban Interface fire problem at the local level. A series of seminars has been held around the country to provide local planning and fire officials with the knowledge and tools, including educational materials, to better prepare their communities to cope with the threat of wildfire.

Under the National Fire Plan, funding was made available to the federal wildfire agencies to increase their fire suppression forces and to expand the scope of their fuel reductions projects. State Fire Assistance funds help state wildfire agencies improve their protection systems and are funneled to local communities as grants to support hazard reduction projects. Volunteer Fire

56 Assistance funds are routed to rural fire departments in the WUI to assist them in acquiring equipment, safety gear, and training to more effectively suppress wildfires and provide structure protection from encroaching wildfires. Unfortunately, unless Congress acts to pass a supplemen- tal appropriation, much of this funding may be siphoned off to pay for the high suppression costs incurred by the federal fire agencies during Fire Season 2002. The vast majority of the NFP dollars are for the federal agencies. The National Fire Plan reflects the views of a broad cross-section of government and non-government interests. The participants recognize that the problem is complex and will not be solved soon. The hope is that the risks from wildland fire to our com- Only three states noted significant munities and environment can be diminished over time as we make progress in achieving improvement in the initial attack defined objectives in a collaborative manner, as funding is made available from as many capabilities of the federal agencies in sources as possible. 2002. National Fire Plan Funding In order to get a full perspective of the National Fire Plan, you have to look at it from several points of view. From the national point of view, it is a very big plan; a plan that has infused much needed funding into the federal wildland firefighting agencies. From the state’s viewpoint, the level of funding is significant, because it allows some activities that have never been funded before (Figure 13).

It was known, right from the beginning, that the funds would not last forever. In fact, the funding was based on the 10-year plan. The estimated appropriation for FY 2003 is 29 percent less than the FY 2001 appropriation (Figure 14).

57 National Fire Plan Funding (in thousands)

FY 2003 FY 2004 Agency FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 President's Budget Request USDA Forest Service $1,035,125 $1,910,192 $1,590,712 $1,399,531 $1,572,203 Deparment of Interior $490,957 $977,099 $678,421 $653,754 $698,725 Total $1,526,082 $2,887,291 $2,269,133 $2,053,285 $2,270,928 Figure 13. The National Fire Plan has infused considerable funding in the federal wildland firefighting agencies. Most of this funding will be expended by the federal agencies.

There are several program areas within the plan: preparedness, operations, emergency contingency, etc. Figure 15 provides a broad overview of how funds have been allocated to these various programs. Note that the funding for the state programs falls under operations (highlighted and in bold italic print).

The state forestry agencies are The percentage of the total National Fire Plan funding in the State Fire Assistance, Volun- allocated funds from the Community teer Fire Assistance and Rural Fire Assistance programs (for all 50 of the states) is less than 5 Assistant program. percent of the total. National Fire Plan Funding In FY 2002 the federal $3,500,000 agencies “chalked up” some very $3,000,000 Deparment of $2,500,000 Interior impressive accomplishments $2,000,000 $1,500,000 using the National Fire Plan $1,000,000 USDA Forest

(in thousands) $500,000 Service allocations. Even though the $0 states do not administer these Request FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2004 Budget FY 2003

funds, they do benefit the states in President's the long run. Not directly, but Figure 14. The funding for the National Fire Plan is already there is considerable benefit. For showing a decline. The appropriation for FY 2003 is 29% less than the peak. a complete report on the status of the National Fire Plan, review FY 2002 Performance Report - National Fire Plan.

58 National Fire Plan Funding by Program (in thousands) FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 DOI FS Total DOI FS Total DOI FS Total Prepardedness $165,849 $408,768 $574,617 $314,712 $611,143 $925,855 $280,807 $622,618 $903,425 Operations Suppression $58,068 $139,188 $197,256 $191,109 $319,324 $510,433 $161,424 $321,321 $482,745 Hazardous Fuels Reduction $47,040 $70,000 $117,040 $194,971 $205,158 $400,129 $186,190 $209,010 $395,200 Emergency Stabilization and $20,000 $20,000 $66,769 $141,688 $208,457 $40,000 $62,668 $102,668 Rehabilitation Fire Facilities Backlog $43,903 $43,903 $20,376 $20,376 Research and Development $15,965 $15,965 $27,265 $27,265 Joint Fire Science $8,000 $8,000 State Fire Assistance $23,929 $23,929 $77,828 $77,828 $81,693 $81,693 Volunteer Fire Assistance $3,240 $3,240 $13,251 $13,251 $13,313 $13,315 Rural Fire Assistance $9,978 $9,978 $10,000 $10,000 Forest Health Management $11,974 $11,974 $11,974 $11,974 Economic Action Program $12,472 $12,472 $12,472 $12,472 Community and Private Lands $34,923 $34,923 Assistance Subtotal Operations $125,108 $236,357 $361,465 $462,827 $876,486 $1,339,313 $397,614 $768,094 $1,165,708 Total Non-Emergency $290,957 $936,082 $777,539 $1,487,629 $2,265,168 $678,421 $1,390,712 $2,069,133 Emergency Contingency $200,000 $590,000 $199,560 $425,063 $624,623 $200,000 $200,000 Agency Total $490,957 $1,526,082 $977,099 $1,912,692 $2,889,791 $678,421 $1,590,712 $2,269,133

Figure 15. This is the breakdown of the funding levels for the various programs. The three highlighted programs in the middle of the chart are the programs for state and local fire agencies.

Some of these programs need a little explanation, because the heading alone does not fully explain its depth or true meaning:

• Firefighting - This is a major part of the National Fire Plan. It covers fire preparedness, work force planning and improvements, training, facilities and equipment. It now also includes funds for “fire facilities backlog.”

• Rehabilitation - This program involves post-fire rehabilitation work after a wildfire that is unlikely to recover naturally. Some examples involve reforestation, road and trail reha-

59 bilitation, fence replacement, fish and wildlife habitat restoration, invasive plant treatments, and replanting and reseeding with native or other desirable vegetation.

• Hazardous Fuels Reduction - There has been considerable reporting on how 100-years of “successful” fire suppression has not allowed natural fire to keep our forests clean. The State Fire Assistance is for the funds provided are part of a long-term strategy to reduce the heavy fuel buildups on federal states to use for preparedness and and adjacent lands. Some of the treatment methods used are prescribed fire, mechanical other programs. thinning, herbicides, grazing, or a combination of them. Under this heading you will also find funding for planning biomass utilization and forest health protection.

• Community Assistance - Under this heading, we find State Fire Assistance, Volunteer Fire Assistance, Rural Fire Assistance, FireWise Community Program, and Economic Action Programs. (See the next section in this report for a more complete explanation of these very important programs.)

• Research - Under this heading, there is full range of research projects that provide support for all of the programs listed before.

Community Assistance Programs

The states and rural volunteer fire departments have been the recipients of federal assistance for years. In some of the larger states, the amount has been a small percentage of their operating dollars, but in the smaller states, the federal grants are vital to the existence of the “state forestry” operation.

Under the National Fire Plan, the western states received over $74 million in FY 2002 (Figure 16). All of these funds come from the Community Assistance area of the USDA Forest Service budget and the Rural Fire Assistance budget for the Department of Interior.

60 National Fire Plan Funding, by State Federal Grants for Fiscal Year 2002

State Fire Assistance Volunteer Fire Assistance Rural Fire Assistance TOTAL (2) Base Funding (Formula) Competitive Grants

Alaska $335,609 3.4% $895,391 3.9% $283,657 5.1% $96,628 1.2% $1,611,285 3.5% Arizona* $897,000 9.1% $2,221,500 9.7% $376,000 6.8% $455,750 5.7% $3,950,250 8.6% California* $1,000,210 10.1% $937,770 4.1% $954,072 17.3% $662,000 8.3% $3,554,052 7.7% Colorado* $994,304 10.1% $3,630,435 15.9% $669,643 12.2% $544,000 6.9% $5,838,382 12.7% Hawaii* $380,651 3.9% $115,480 0.5% $200,599 3.6% $15,000 0.2% $711,730 1.5% Idaho* $486,800 4.9% $3,530,700 15.5% $184,400 3.3% $935,575 11.8% $5,137,475 11.1% Kansas $495,000 5.0% $60,000 0.3% $181,000 3.3% $33,537 0.4% $769,537 1.7% Montana* $603,700 6.1% $1,140,067 5.0% $378,713 6.9% $854,030 10.8% $2,976,510 6.5% Nebraska* $467,100 4.7% $28,000 0.1% $143,000 2.6% $101,416 1.3% $739,516 1.6% Nevada* $307,000 3.1% $1,999,936 8.8% $157,681 2.9% $873,928 11.0% $3,338,545 7.2% New Mexico $72,500 0.7% $2,110,500 9.3% $193,300 3.5% $484,517 6.1% $2,860,817 6.2% North Dakota* $195,500 2.0% $0 0.0% $407,900 7.4% $228,597 2.9% $831,997 1.8% Oregon $1,041,395 10.6% $2,953,209 12.9% $416,390 7.6% $816,939 10.3% $5,227,933 11.3% South Dakota* $584,100 5.9% $346,000 1.5% $197,000 3.6% $222,000 2.8% $1,349,100 2.9% Utah* $381,134 3.9% $427,000 1.9% $229,229 4.2% $760,000 9.6% $1,797,363 3.9% Washington $383,395 3.9% $1,490,000 6.5% $384,221 7.0% $385,226 4.9% $2,642,842 5.7% Wyoming* $463,000 4.7% $846,602 3.7% $151,300 2.7% $466,456 5.9% $1,927,358 4.2% Other(1) $766,300 $80,000 0.4% $0 $0 $846,300 Total $9,854,698 $22,812,590 $5,508,105 $7,935,599 $46,110,992

$32,667,288

National Total $51,727,402 $10,419,113 $9,942,744 $72,089,259 Source: FY 2002 Performance Report - National Fire Plan, January 2003; * individual state records; (1) Guam and American Samoa, CNMI and other Pacific Islands; (2) Not all of these funds are administered by the State Forester. Figure 16. This is a breakdown by state, of the amounts given in 2002 from the National Fire Plan.

61 State Fire Assistance - USDA Forest Service funding will provide for technical and financial assistance to the states to enhance firefighting capacity at the state and local levels. This funding also supports fire hazard mitigation projects in the wildland/urban interface and The big jump in State Fire Assistance will facilitate an expanded series of FireWise workshops to help communities across the coun- is due to the infusion of funds under try implement FireWise practices that reduce fire hazard. It will also support an expanded the National Fire Plan competitive national public service fire prevention program (Figure 17). grants program. • Preparedness - Increases the ability of local, rural, and state organizations to provide coordinated fire protection and mobilization for fire suppression on both federal and non- federal lands.

• Hazard Mitigation - Sup- State Fire Assistance Grants ports state-led hazard mitiga- (in thousands) tion activities in the wildland/ FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 Total urban interface, focused on Alaska $407 $367 $4,132 $11,881 $1,231 $18,018 21% reducing property loss, decreas- Arizona $158 $174 $174 $1,584 $1,315 $3,405 4% ing fuels hazards, and increas- California $309 $312 $487 $2,864 $1,923 $5,895 7% ing public awareness and Colorado $448 $403 $442 $2,836 $4,625 $8,754 10% citizen-driven solutions in rural Hawaii $235 $235 $280 $451 $797 $1,998 2% communities. Idaho $300 $314 $328 $2,540 $4,018 $7,500 9% Kansas $200 $200 $245 $515 $555 $1,715 2% • Fire Prevention - Delivers a Montana $378 $400 $424 $1,410 $1,869 $4,481 5% nationwide fire prevention Nebraska $242 $242 $219 $446 $495 $1,644 2% program through public service Nevada $178 $185 $202 $1,058 $1,828 $3,451 4% advertising, educational activi- New Mexico $165 $180 $231 $2,076 $2,183 $4,835 6% ties, product licensing, and North Dakota $91 $95 $99 $281 $196 $762 1% corporate partnerships. The Oregon $464 $507 $560 $2,072 $1,044 $4,647 5% Smokey Bear program is part South Dakota $270 $320 $313 $984 $930 $2,817 3% of this component, and Fire- Utah $178 $185 $219 $3,130 $1,318 $5,030 6% Wise is another prevention Washington $464 $507 $594 $3,518 $1,873 $6,956 8% component. FireWise is a Wyoming $202 $209 $233 $1,335 $1,310 $3,289 4% program that promotes wild- Total $4,689 $4,835 $9,182 $38,981 $27,510 $85,197 land fire safety in the interface Source: USDA, Forest Service, WO and fosters community-based Figure 17. The 5-year history of State Fire Assistance Grants to the states in the West. responsibility through adult

62 education, community action planning, fuel treatments, and landscaping. Twenty-four FireWise workshops for community and business leaders have been conducted over the last three-years. Participants will work to establish local FireWise standards to ensure a safer place for people to live. The first twelve workshops trained 953 participants from 425 communities and 45 states.

Volunteer Fire Assistance - The Volunteer Fire Assistance Program, funded by the USDA Volunteer Fire Assistant Grants are Forest Service, provides funds through States to volunteer fire departments serving communi- administered by the various State ties to improve communication capabilities, provide critical wildland fire management training, Foresters.

Volunteer Fire Assistance Grants (in thousands) FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 Total Alaska $31 $44 $77 $394 $284 $830 7% Arizona $30 $30 $30 $335 $337 $762 6% California $70 $70 $70 $118 $959 $1,287 10% Colorado $38 $37 $61 $664 $648 $1,448 12% Hawaii $37 $37 $55 $200 $200 $529 4% Idaho $23 $23 $38 $345 $184 $613 5% Kansas $44 $44 $112 $180 $181 $561 4% Montana $40 $40 $65 $286 $379 $810 6% Nebraska $51 $51 $83 $142 $143 $470 4% Nevada $20 $20 $20 $193 $110 $363 3% New Mexico $23 $23 $45 $326 $190 $607 5% North Dakota $64 $64 $104 $336 $408 $976 8% Oregon $33 $33 $54 $407 $415 $942 8% South Dakota $35 $49 $79 $199 $181 $543 4% Utah $21 $21 $39 $194 $209 $484 4% Washington $33 $33 $53 $407 $384 $910 7% Wyoming $16 $16 $25 $140 $151 $348 3% Total $609 $635 $1,010 $4,866 $5,363 $12,483 Source: USDA, Forest Service, WO Figure 18. The 5-year history of Volunteer Fire Assistance Grants for the states in the West. These grants are administered by the State Foresters.

63 and purchase protective fire clothing and equipment. Rural Fire Assistance Grants These departments provide, at (in thousands) FY2001 FY2002 Total no cost, wildfire and emer- Alaska $75,867 $109,800 $185,667 1% gency protection service to Arizona $503,871 $509,000 $1,012,871 6% communities with populations California $455,097 $662,000 $1,117,097 7% of under 10,000. Volunteer Colorado $684,254 $544,000 $1,228,254 8% Fire Departments provide Hawaii $25,389 $15,000 $40,389 0% services that reach 43% of the Idaho $875,085 $867,000 $1,742,085 11% population, at an estimated Kansas $23,364 $0 $23,364 0% value of $36 billion per year Montana $861,556 $844,000 $1,705,556 11% (Figure 18). Nebraska $102,985 $267,000 $369,985 2% Nevada $875,429 $865,000 $1,740,429 11% Rural Fire Assistance - New Mexico $367,594 $499,000 $866,594 5% Department of the Interior North Dakota $256,317 $0 $256,317 2% funding will be used to pro- $751,238 $1,035,000 $1,786,238 11% vide technical assistance, Oregon $296,411 $222,000 $518,411 3% training, supplies, equipment, South Dakota and public education support Utah $765,620 $790,000 $1,555,620 10% to rural fire departments, thus Washington $304,226 $790,000 $1,094,226 7% enhancing firefighter safety Wyoming $433,284 $434,000 $867,284 5% and strengthening wildland Other $0 $0 0% fire protection capabilities Total $7,657,587 $8,452,800 $16,110,387 (Figure 19). Figure 19. The Rural Fire Assistance Grant program is under the various agencies in the Department of the Interior. Some of the grants Federal Excess Property are administered by the agencies directly; some in coordination with the State Foresters. Program - Under the Federal Excess Personal Property (FEPP) program, Federal property, originally purchased for use by a Federal agency, but no longer needed by that entity, is acquired by the USDA Forest Service for loan to one of the 50 States for use in the State’s rural or wildland fire protection program. As a result, the equipment stays in service to America, protecting lives and property across the nation.

64 The “personal” part of the FEPP program simply refers to any tangible property that is not real estate. This can include trucks, aircraft, personal protective equipment, motor oil, nuts, bolts, fire hose, et cetera, but not buildings.

The State Forester makes the initial decision that an FEPP item is appropriate for use, and the USDA Forest Service must concur. The property is then loaned to the State Forester, who may then place it with local departments to improve local fire programs. Approximately 70% of the property involved in the Forest Service FEPP program is sub-loaned to local fire depart- The Federal Excess Property Program ments (Figure 20). has been invaluable for the states and rural fire departments. FireWise - The National Fire Plan has dedicated $5 million (FY 2001-2003) for development and delivery of the FireWise Program. Actually a suite of complementary programs,

Federal Excess Property Program Acquisition, by State

State FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 5-year Total 5-year Average Alaska $472,689 $1,132,986 $1,804,555 $1,176,223 $4,586,454 $917,291 Arizona $306,676 $541,210 $231,693 $479,612 $1,559,191 $311,838 California $29,740,724 $10,103,896 $26,425,137 $19,104,371 $7,527,042 $92,901,169 $18,580,234 Colorado $770,471 $570,910 $350,224 $1,505,652 $104,561 $3,301,818 $660,364 Hawaii $77,717 $489,785 $684,193 $1,251,695 $250,339 Idaho $1,395,417 $2,115,519 $897,966 $373,926 $1,828,383 $6,611,212 $1,322,242 Kansas $1,983,801 $1,353,692 $181,622 $450,728 $5,585,378 $9,555,221 $1,911,044 Montana $1,433,422 $7,256,509 $2,081,025 $476,441 $4,448,824 $15,696,221 $3,139,244 Nebraska $896,080 $680,035 $217,002 $1,972,794 $3,765,911 $753,182 Nevada $1,725,782 $542,918 $1,292,185 $162,466 $3,723,352 $744,670 New Mexico $465,902 $362,556 $763,884 $695,499 $377,019 $2,664,861 $532,972 North Dakota $559,836 $178,682 $660,359 $94,825 $118,727 $1,612,429 $322,486 Oregon $3,414,282 $4,406,797 $3,883,436 $1,649,154 $1,098,415 $14,452,084 $2,890,417 South Dakota $30,888 $1,116,019 $2,910,912 $78,033 $100,753 $4,236,605 $847,321 Utah $1,641,095 $623,966 $662,857 $1,249,855 $523,243 $4,701,017 $940,203 Washington $4,016,167 $5,849,680 $6,528,742 $3,150,722 $2,715,446 $22,260,757 $4,452,151 Wyoming $500 $686,280 $342,712 $247,679 $625,158 $1,902,329 $380,466

Guam and other Pacific Islands $241,833 $62,835 $124,168 $37,664 $466,500 $93,300 Total $49,173,282 $37,584,493 $49,017,309 $31,246,530 $28,227,212 $195,248,825 $39,049,765

Figure 20. The value of FEPP to the states and rural fire departments cannot really be measured. This is a historical picture of the value of the materials loaned to the states in the West.

65 FireWise is aimed at informing the community spectrum - homeowners, firefighters and build- ers to landscapers, insurance agents and public officials - about the concept of FireWise living. Program components include the following:

• FireWise Website (www.FireWise.org): Representing a successful partnership of private and government agencies, this site averages 150,000 hits a month.

• Communication Tools such as publications and videos: FireWise concepts on landscaping, building, firefighter safety and other topics are available online as well as through other outlets. The latest project is a television documentary called “Keepers of the Flame,” which puts America’s fire history and wildland/urban interface fire problem in context.

FireWise is one of the National Fire • Workshops, Training Sessions and Demonstration Events: These activities are focused Plan programs that has the potential on reducing fire risk to property and lives through better community design and retrofit, for long-term impacts. and preparedness planning.

• Technical Assistance to Communities: As FireWise spreads across the country, more communities are looking to program organizers for help. This component includes ArcView mapping technology.

• FireWise Communities USA Recognition Program: Communities can earn national status for their work to improve planning for mitigation of fire hazards. Currently, there are 11 geographically diverse pilot communities in the recognition program, which will be officially unveiled in late 2003. Nationwide, there are thousands of communities with wildland/urban interface areas.

FireWise Communities Workshop Series - Launched in the fall of 1999, the FireWise Communities Workshop Series is an integral part of the FireWise Program. With more than 30 stakeholder groups – federal agencies, national organizations and private companies as sponsors – the series offers more than two-dozen national workshops across the country through 2003. Invited to each are the people who can truly influence the way an area is planned, built, maintained and protected. To date, 953 community stakeholders from 425 communities in 45 states have attended these regionally based workshops. By project’s end, more than 2,000 community leaders will have participated. Another 2,500 are expected to attend the spin-off

66 workshops that are occurring (50+ to date) in the states hosting national workshops. National participants are provided with a wealth of FireWise material, including the computer-aided workshop exercise that allows these leaders to talk in small groups about the complexities of creating a FireWise Community. For more information about the series, visit the FireWise Communities website at www.FireWise.org/communities.

Thousands of people have a better understanding of the wildland/urban interface fire problem after attending a FireWise workshop.

67 Competitive Grants

The National Fire Plan funded fuel reduction programs for areas that were classified as being in the wildland/urban interface. As a means to get these funds to the states, the USDA Forest Service decided to use an existing mechanism, that of the State Fire Assistance grants.

Historically, the USDA Forest Service used a formula to allocate the funds to the states, so as the annual allocation moved up or down, each of the states was treated equally. Every once in a while, a member of Congress was able to place special rules that dictated a special allocation; the most recent one was an augmentation to the State of Alaska related to bug kill on the Kenni Peninsula. The competitive grants program has been an important step at reducing To facilitate the allocation for the wildland/urban interface grants, the rules were changed the wildland/urban interface problem. to: At least in the short term. • Allocate 25% of the State Fire Assistance allocation to the states using the formula. This provided funds at a similar level as in the past. It should be noted here, that the percentage for the formula allocations will jump to 35% in federal fiscal year 2003. This was done to allow the states to have more discretionary authority on how the funds could be used.

• The remaining funds were then allocated on a competitive basis. Each state would provide a list of projects that they would like to conduct, using these funds.

The Council of Western State Foresters gave the responsibility of developing the list of qualifying projects to their fire managers. A subcommittee of the Western State Fire Managers then would meet, reviewing the hundreds of applications to determine if they met the requirements, their completeness, etc. A list of projects was then prepared and submitted to the Council for approval and submission to the USDA Forest Service.

The legislation allowed funds to be expended on several types of projects. They included:

• Hazardous Fuel Reduction - Fuel reduction projects and vegetation treatments have been identified as a means of mitigating wildfire hazards. Projects of this type included fuel breaks, thinning, pruning, landscape modifications, etc.

68 • Information and Education - In the wildland/urban interface homeowners and local government should bear much of the responsibility for improving the defensibility of homes and other buildings. The plan was to develop programs that would help educate the general public and local government officials on what has to be done to provide a permanent “fix” to this problem. Some qualifying projects would include FireWise or similar projects, defensible space around homes and structures, shaded fuel breaks, fuels reduction beyond defensible space, etc. Information and education has the greatest long-term impacts. • Homeowner and Community Actions - Creating conditions in and round individual structures and communities that would limit the “transmission” of fire between the wildland and the structures. These types of projects could include safety inspections, demonstration projects, training and education for homeowners, planners and fire service personnel, etc.

• Planning and/or Assessment Projects - These projects identify values in the wildland/ urban interface that are important to protect. Qualifying projects could include county or community planning, hazard fuel mapping projects, etc. The most common NFP projects: • Public Education • Monitoring - These projects generally would document the status of the projects listed above. • Fuel Breaks • Mechanical Thinning There were several projects that were submitted, but automatically rejected. Some of the • Defensible Space more common examples are: the purchase of fire equipment and apparatus, start up funding of a small business, research and development, and fire preparedness and suppression capacity building.

As with most competitive grant programs, the final success is based on several factions. In this case, these were some of the influences:

• Availability of Funds - Congress did not appropriate the funds needed to complete all of the desired projects.

• Application was rejected because it was not complete, not on time or for a project that did not qualify.

• Higher priority projects available. 69 Communities at Risk

Since the National Fire Plan sets a priority for action on the protection of communities, such communities have to be identified.

The wildland/urban interface occurs where human structures (e.g., homes, businesses, agricultural buildings, recreational facilities) meet or intermix with wildland vegetation. At times the wildland vegetation may pose a fire hazard because of its flammability or an unusu- At least 22,000 communities in the ally high accumulation of plant material or fuel. The accumulation of wildland fuel around and nation are considered to be in the within communities in the wildland/urban interface poses a significant fire hazard. wildland/urban interface. Most states completed the standardized process or a comparable process for identifying communities at risk, and 11,376 communities were identified in the vicinity of federal lands. The first attempt to identify the communities at risk was published in the Federal Register in August 2001.

States and tribes submitted names of 22,127 communities, which included communities in the vicinity of lands managed by the Depart- ments of Agriculture and the Interior and communities in the vicinity of state and other lands. For those in the vicinity of federal lands, 1,864 communities have projects planned near them. Additional funding is necessary to make an impact on the remaining communities. Most communities submitted by the states and tribes are eligible for funds appropriated to State & Private Forestry programs within the Forest Service, regardless of the communities’ relationship to federal lands.

The revised list offers several insights into the national scope of the wildland/urban interface communities. This information better illustrates the relationship between federal lands and the interface problem in the United States. This list will provide an important tool for use at the state level to focus attention on vulnerable areas, and to aid state and federal agencies in collaborative efforts to work in areas of local importance and where opportunities are most condu- cive to reducing risks on a meaningful scale. Because a number of communities submitted by the states are not published here, it must NOT be assumed that the list portrays a complete national picture of the wildland/urban interface areas at risk for all land ownerships.

70 The information contained in the revised list helps interagency groups of land managers at the state and/or tribal level to collaboratively identify priority areas within their jurisdictions that would benefit from hazard reduction projects. The revised list offered an opportunity to partner with states and tribes, which is a central feature of the National Fire Plan.

Developing relationships with partners has resulted in more comprehensive information that better reflects the relationship between federal lands and the interface problem in the United States. This collaborative effort to identify communities at risk from wildfire has more clearly demonstrated the wildland/urban interface problem across the United States. In many Identifying and prioritizing states, this process fostered important steps in federal, state, and local cooperation to identify communities at risk is a collaborative areas of concern and planned actions. Many states will continue the collaborative process with federal agencies and tribes, to better focus hazard mitigation efforts and set priorities for com- process. munities at the state and local level. Working together is a long-term investment, and the listing process was just one of many joint projects. Project implementation will involve federal land management agencies, state foresters, tribes, and communities in planning and implementing wildfire hazard/risk reduction projects, carrying out FireWise projects, and identifying local contractors for thinning, reforestation, or other National Fire Plan projects. Six states had NFP projects that were impacted by wildfire in 2002. During the listing process, there were several concerns raised by the states about the process. The FY 2001 Appropriations Act for the Department of the Interior and Related Agen- cies requires only the listing of communities in the vicinity of federal lands. Listing only those communities does not adequately portray the extent and complexity of the issue. Wildland/ urban interface issues need to be dealt with on a state level basis, not just in the vicinity of federal lands. Great concern has been noted on how the list will be used. There are concerns that the list will be used to allocate funds and firefighting resources without regard to other factors – this is untrue. There is a perception that completing a project in the vicinity of a community at risk will fully mitigate the hazard. Hazard mitigation for many communities will require significant effort through multiple projects, and must be an ongoing multi-year process.

During the 2000 fire season wildfires burned millions of acres throughout the United States. These fires dramatically illustrated the threat to human lives and development. Under Executive Order, the National Fire Plan was created as a cooperative, long-term effort of the USDA Forest Service, Department of the Interior, and the National Association of State Forest- ers, to protect communities and restore ecological health on Federal lands.

71 A major component of the National Fire Plan was funding for projects designed to reduce fire risks to people and their property. A fundamental step in realizing this goal was the identification of areas that are at high risk of damage from wildfire. Federal fire managers authorized State Foresters to determine which communities were under significant risk from wildland fire on Federal lands.

A Better Definition The Fire Committee of the National Association of State Foresters did not like the Identifying the communities at risk is process of how communities at risk were identified. They started to develop a new and more a state responsibility. meaningful definition of what a community at risk really was. Since California has been dealing with this issue for over 40 years, they asked the State Forester to work on this issue.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) undertook the task of generating the state’s list of communities at risk. With California’s extensive wildland-urban interface situation the list of communities extends well beyond just those on federal lands.

Three main factors were used to determine wildland fire threat areas of California:

• Ranking Fuel Hazards - ranking vegetation types by their potential fire behavior during 11 states undertook cooperative a wildfire. The fuels are what brings the fire to the structure. Some are more hazardous projects with other agencies. than others. • Assessing the Probability of Fire - the annual likelihood that a large damaging wildfire would occur in a particular vegetation type. There are places in the nation where homes have existed in the wildlands and have never been threatened by a wildland fire. Con- versely, there are homes in some areas, like Southern California, where certain home sites have been destroyed several times in the last twenty years.

• Defining Areas of Suitable Housing Density that Would Create Wildland/Urban Interface Fire Protection Strategy Situations - areas of intermingled wildland fuels and urban environments that are in the vicinity of fire threats.

The Fire-Threatened Communities in California list includes a total of 1,283 communities. Of those, 843 are adjacent to federal lands (USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management,

72 Department of Defense, etc.) and are indicated as such with an “F” in the Fed. Threat column. The Hazard Level Code included on the list designates a community’s fire threat level with three indicating the highest threat. The adoption of a meaningful definition of “communities at risk” is paramount. Unless all of the states adopt a uniform definition, they run the risk of losing funding from the National level.

One of the problems confronting the various state and federal agencies is that, once identified, how do you go about taking a community “off the list.” The reality is that very few communities at risk will ever be “protected” to the point that they are no longer at risk. The actions taken to date are short term fixes at best. Fuel reduction work is only as good as the continued maintenance. Solutions to the problem are long term and require that homes being constructed be resistant to ignition. “Steel homes” like this one are not practical, but there are things that can be done to decrease the odds of a house becoming a statistic. FireWise and building code regulations are the long term solution.

73 74 A Community at Risk - Flagstaff, Arizona

One of the features of the National Fire Plan process has been the creation of a list of all the “communities at risk” in the wildland/urban interface adjacent to federal lands. This list now totals some 11,376 communities, many of which are political additions where wildfire risk is really minimal. If there ever was a large community that meets the original intent of compil- ing such a list, Flagstaff is it.

Located at an elevation of almost 7,000 feet, Flagstaff sits at the base of the scenic San Francisco Peaks, which tower more than a mile above the city skyline. With a population of 53,000 Flagstaff is a growing, vibrant community that sits at the intersection of Interstates 40 Flagstaff is a classic wildland/urban and 17, close enough to the Grand Canyon to reap the economic benefits of the tourist traffic, as interface community. well as the urban conundrum of too much traffic. Home to Northern Arizona University, which has a strong forestry school and is home to Ecological Restoration Institute, the community has a strong environmental conscience and great appreciation for the natural beauty and resources surrounding it. This community already had several significant forest stewardship and fire hazard reduction projects going, and was well positioned to take full advantage of new funding available from the National Fire Plan.

Fire History Nestled in the Ponderosa Pine forest, Flagstaff is practi- cally surrounded by wildlands. The drought and bugs have killed a high percentage of the forests in this area (Figure 21). The Kaibab National Forest to the north and west spreads toward Figure 21. 25 to 30 percent of the pine trees around Flagstaff are dead the Grand Canyon. The due to drought and bugs.

75 Coconino National Forest surrounds the city. Several parcels of state forest lands border the southwest side of town, intermixed with Forest Service and private lands in the familiar checkerboard pattern so common in the West. These public lands, which constitute a fire-dependent ecosystem, have a long and colorful fire history which has been well documented and studied.

For many residents of Flagstaff, modern fire history began with the Radio Fire in June of 1977, which burned across the south face of Mount Elden, just to the north of the City, leaving many residents with a viewshed composed primarily of white tree skeletons. Started by a The Radio Fire burned in June 1977. runaway teenager’s escaped campfire, the Radio Fire frustrated the efforts of the initial attack fire forces by leaping into the tops of the pine trees and roaring up the mountain in a matter of a few minutes as a nearly continuous crown fire. The FS lookout tower on Mount Elden was hastily abandoned, and the fire burned down the telephone lines to the mountaintop radio facilities, creating communications problems for the fire suppression forces. Some homes were threatened and there were some precautionary evacuations. A similar fire today would threaten many more homes.

The Radio Fire burned so hot that it completely transformed the landscape from pine with oak on the south and east slopes to only brush and scrub oak today. Soil damage and microcli- mate changes have prevented the ponderosa pine from coming back on much of that fire site. Both the forest that burned, and the brush fields that have replaced it are very different from the historical pine forest of the Southwest. The presettlement ponderosa pine forest probably had 10-12 very large trees per acre, many 500 years old or older. The forest that burned in 1977, following years of logging and fire suppression, probably had 150-200 trees per acre, with a heavy component of dead litter on the forest floor.

This condition is typical of today, and the result is that fires now burn more intensely, are harder to put out, and do more damage than the fires of old. In the 1950’s the average annual burn in the Forest Service’s Southwest Region was about 38,000 acres. By the 1990’s the annual average had increased to 112,000 acres. In 2002, one wildfire burned four times that much acreage. Around Flagstaff, the major fires have gotten bigger each decade also. In the 1950’s, the biggest fire was less than 2,000 acres. By the 1970’s, fires were ranging from 3,500 to 7,000 acres. In the 1990’s, fires of 8,000 to 16,000 acres had become the norm.

76 The Wildland/Urban Interface Arizona is one of the fastest growing states in the nation, as many refugees from the snow country move to the desert for their retirement years. Increasing home values allow more residents of the desert to move to or build summer homes in the mountains, where summer days, and especially nights, are cooler. As Flagstaff continues to grow, with new subdivisions winding through the trees in every direction, the wildland/urban interface continues to grow (180,000 acres), and to become more complex (Figure 22).

This interface does not just extend 60 or 100 feet from the last house, but really extends for miles across jurisdictional and property boundaries, making the Community Partnerships are “values at risk” from wildfire important. values that are shared by the entire community. Some of the values that could be affected by a major fire in the Flagstaff area include: public health, recreation, water, wildlife, real estate and personal property, scenic and economic values, as well as the emotional and spiritual health of the entire community. A serious wildfire could destroy the vitality and strangle the growth of this vibrant community. www.gffp.org Community Partnership Seeks Forest Health The Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership (www.gffp.org) is an alliance of Figure 22. This map shows partnership areas in the Flagstaff, 23 academic, environmental, Arizona area.

77 business, and government organizations in the community that is dedicated to testing and adapting new approaches to restoring forest ecosystem health in the Flagstaff area. Its goals include restoring natural ecosystem composition, structure, and function to the ponderosa pine forests; managing forest fuels to reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfire; and to study and document the key ecological, economic, and social dimensions of forest health restoration efforts.

Key elements of the Greater Flagstaff Forest Partnership include: Flagstaff facts: 180,000 acres in wildland/urban • A framework for restoring forest ecosystems interface; 5,400 acres thinned; • A strong scientific foundation for all activities 2,250 acres burned; 7,000 acres planned; • Testing a variety of approaches 11,000 acres under study; and • Extensive research and monitoring 68 research projects. The partnership has seven major forest restoration projects underway in the greater Flagstaff area following a nineteen-month delay as the result of litigation (Figure 23). Thinning of trees in the overstocked wildland/urban interface is one of the top fire hazard reduction priorities, with 11 different types of treatment being utilized. By 2002, some 1,900 acres of FS land and 3,500 acres of city and state lands have been thinned. Prescribed burning has been accomplished on 1,750 acres of city, state, and private lands, as well as another 500 Figure 23. The National Fire Plan funded this cooperative operation acres of FS land. Some 7,000 to reduce the fire hazard.

78 acres in the community are being intensively managed for forest health restoration. Environ- mental analysis on an additional 24,000 acres has identified about 11,000 acres of additional potential treatment area. There are 68 different research projects underway within the partnership, many under the umbrella of the Ecological Restoration Institute. The partnership has recently published a reference guide to all the various research projects to encourage information sharing among various disciplines.

The projects cover a wide range of topics and ideas in addition to just fire hazard reduction. Included are such activities as determining the economic feasibility of utilizing the small diameter pines trees that must be harvested for such things as elk exclusion fences to protect A State Fire Assistance Grant got springs and streams while riparian vegetation regrows, or, as fuel for a biomass electric power Flagstaff started. plant.

Federal Funds Helpful The Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership received a $45,000 grant of State Fire Assistance funds from the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) for the planning and public education parts of the start-up process that were so critical to developing a framework for forest health restoration that enjoys broad public support.

State Fire Assistance funds have also enabled the ASLD Fire Management Division to continue to be an important contributor to the success of the forest health restoration efforts in Flagstaff, despite the current climate of state budget cuts and hiring freezes.

National Fire Plan funds enable the funding of hazard reduction and prescribed fire crews of the ASLD, Coconino NF, and Flagstaff Fire Department (FFD) which work cooperatively to accomplish projects that link across ownership boundaries to achieve strategic fire hazard reduction goals. NFP funds enable hazard reduction projects to take place on private ownerships that may not otherwise be able to afford to do the work and which could become weak links in the chain of fire hazard reduction projects.

Grant funds enabled the acquisition of the pole peeler used to make thinned small diameter pine trees into poles for the elk exclusion fence that protects a restored spring at Fort Tuthill County Park, one of the cooperators in the partnership and a useful public education demonstration area (Figure 24).

79 Corporate sponsorships, community service club donations, public donations, and private property landowner efforts have all been leveraged to accomplish much more than any one agency could ever undertake. Throughout the community, Corporate and community service significant progress is being clubs can provide valuable assistance. made to restore forest health, reduce the potential for catastrophic fires, and make the greater Flagstaff area a better place to live, now and in the future.

Figure 24. Federal matching funds were used to reduce the fuel loading hazard and construct this elk fence.

Urban Watershed at Risk – Denver

The Hayman Fire, a man-caused forest fire, ravaged much of the critical South Platte River watershed, the source of as much as 80% of the water for the rapidly growing Denver metropolitan area. Combined with a continuing serious drought in the Rocky Mountain Front Range, the loss of thousands of acres of forest could force major water conservation measures, especially if high intensity rains cause heavy siltation in Cheesman Reservoir.

Cheesman Reserve is a critical watershed southwest of Denver that includes Cheesman and Strontia Springs reservoirs on the South Platte River. Besides being a primary water source for a major urban area, the forests of the reserve were also an important recreation resource for many urban residents. The South Platte River is a blue-ribbon trout stream and the reservoirs are magnets for fisherman. Hikers, hunters, and others have used the forests of the reserve for decades (Figure 25).

80 Denver Water, in cooperation with the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) has managed the land as a multiple use forest, with water production and quality being the primary concern. The agencies had developed a comprehensive plan to treat the watershed to reduce fuel loading and improve forest health. Several areas had been treated and more projects were on the schedule. The Hayman Fire damaged the Denver Unfortunately, the Hayman watershed for years. Fire burned under conditions of severe drought, heavy fuel loading, and high fire danger sweeping Figure 25. Thinned and burned pine forest in Colorado. across most of the watershed as a crown fire, resulting in severe fire damage to the forest. For miles upon end, no tree, bush, or blade of grass survived the conflagration of 2002. In the critical Cheesman Reservoir area, the only green pine trees left after the passage of the wildfire across thousands of acres of pine forest were in a narrow band around the edge of the reservoir where vegetation had been thinned to enhance recreation, in the area burned by a previous forest fire in the 60’s, and in the area of a fuel reduction project funded in part by a NFP grant. The vast majority of the forest looks like a nuclear wasteland (Figure 26).

The predominant soil type in the area is decomposed granite, which is very coarse and unstable. On steep slopes denuded of vegetative cover this soil erodes readily. Even after light summer rain showers, ash flows choked intermittent streams and mud flows overran temporary erosion barriers hastily placed by Denver Water. The agency has spent millions of dollars in post fire rehabilitation efforts to try to minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation of the reservoirs, but much of this effort could be ineffective in the face of an intense winter/spring rainstorm. The potential exists for mudflows to cause so much silt to flow in to Cheesman Reservoir that the intakes for the water system could be covered over and the water system rendered inoperable. Even without heavy rains this first winter, fire damage to the soil surface is so severe in many areas and so few seed sources remain that effectively reforesting this critical watershed will take many years and be very expensive (Figure 27). 81 This is but one of hundreds of urban water supplies that are at risk in the wildland-urban interface, especially in the West. Many communities rely on surface storage in reservoirs located in nearby watersheds for most of their domestic water. During drought conditions, inflow to the reservoirs is re- Many communities rely on surface duced while at the same time the water supplies. fire danger in the surrounding watershed increases. Wildfires can destroy the vegetative cover in whole watersheds, producing a fire-flood sequence of events that Figure 26. The Hayman Fire burn area. result in increased siltation of the Seven states reported major fires in reservoirs, pollution of the water critial urban watersheds in 2002. supply, and in severe cases, the destruction of the whole water system.

The Hayman Fire and its impact on the Denver water system are worth looking at as harbingers of what many communities may face as the wildfire problem in the wildland-urban interface escalates and water shortages proliferate in the West.

Figure 27. Straw bale check dams in Hayman Fire above reservoir.

82 The Hayman Fire Fire conditions along the Rocky Mountain Front Range in Colorado in the summer of 2002 were as bad as or worse than at any time in recorded climatological data. A meager winter snow pack in the mountains was followed by the failure of the summer “monsoon” rain pattern to develop over the Southwest. By summer, the drought conditions were fifty percent worse than the historic worst drought conditions, which occurred in 1851. The fuel moisture in hundred- hour fuels on the Pike-San Isabel National Forests was measured at 9 percent. At this stage of drought, even large old trees have lost their ability to resist fire and whole forests are subject to stand-replacing wildfires. Hayman Fire facts: The Hayman Fire started on June 8, 2002 at 1600 hours near a campground on the Pike 137,760 acres; National Forest. It was a human-caused fire, set by a U.S. Forest Service employee using a 133 homes lost; paper torch. The fire spread immediately and rapidly out of the campground, despite early detection and reporting, and despite an aggressive initial attack (Figure 28). 466 other structures lost; $40 million to suppress; and By now a raging inferno, the Hayman Fire raced through five miles of the Cheesman $36 million rehab costs. Reserve in less than 1½ hours, sometimes reaching speeds of up to 85 miles per hour. Of the 8,200 acres burned on the reserve, more than half (4,594 acres) burned at high intensity, killing all vegetative cover and severely damaging the surface soil layer. Only 206 acres of the reserve escaped the effects of the fire.

The fire was not contained until July 2, 2002 after burning 137,760 acres of Ponderosa Pine and mixed conifer forest in four Colorado counties. It was not declared under control until July Figure 28. The Hayman Fire burned over 137,000 acres in four 18, 2002. The Hayman Fire, the counties of Colorado. 83 largest wildfire in Colorado history, destroyed 133 residences, 466 outbuildings, and one commercial building and cost more than $40 million to suppress. Additional millions have and are being spent on burned area emergency rehabilitation and to prevent damage to Denver’s water system facilities (Figures 29 and 30).

The Ponderosa Pine Forest The ecosystems and landscape of the Front Range have changed considerably over the last 150 years, as the influences of a variety of human activities have taken effect. Large wildfires and epidemics of insect and disease damages are becoming more common. Logging, overgrazing, and fire exclusion have resulted in younger, denser forests with thick undergrowth which makes the forest more susceptible to catastrophic wildfires.

The forest is a living community of species where trees are dominant. Ponderosa is the most widely distributed pine in the US and can adapt to a wide range of ecological conditions. It frequently starts to appear at the transition from hotter, drier grass and brush lands to cooler, moisture climates and ranges from California to the Dakotas. Ponderosa Pine communities exist throughout the Colorado Front Range at elevations from 5,000 to 9,000 feet. At lower elevations Ponderosa is frequently the only conifer present, but at higher elevations or in moist Figure 29. The rehabilitation cost $36 million. Note that the greatest burn severity was in the north, canyons other species such as Lodgepole Pine, in the Denver watershed. Douglas Fir, and Quaking Aspen may be found intermixed with the Ponderosa Pines. The Ponderosa Pine forest supports a great variety of plant and animal species, some of which are now classified as rare, threatened, or endangered.

The Ponderosa Pine forests of the mid 1800’s consisted of fewer, larger trees spaced some distance apart. Recent research suggests that the crown closure in the mature forest was only about 30 percent and that 25-40 percent of the forest was open meadows. Fairly frequent low-

84 intensity forest fires reduced ground litter build-up, released soil nutrients bound in vegetation, destroyed competing vegetation, prevented intrusion by undesirable species, and lessened the chance of epidemic disease and insect outbreaks. Fires occurred regularly, but were not able to climb into the crowns due to lack of ladder fuels in the understory. Due to the lack of crown closure, fires seldom spread In the pre-settlement forest, fires across whole stands of trees as crown fires. seldom spread across whole stands as crown fires. The Ponderosa Pine forests began to be heavily logged in the late 1800’s, with the majority of the large, mature pines being taken for lumber. Remaining slash was broadcast burned, adding to the site disturbance created by logging. During the early 1900’s (and especially in 1910 during the “Big Blow-up”), vast areas of western forests were ravaged by catastrophic wildfires feeding on the slash left by indiscriminate logging. These conflagrations created a demand for increased fire protection, leading eventually to the 10 a.m. contain- Much forest land in the West is ment policy that dominated fire protection philosophy for much of the overcrowded, undermanaged, and 1900’s. Fewer fires were allowed to burn in the forests, and the overprotected. forests grew denser.

These sites disturbed by logging or fire became seedbeds that supported large numbers of new pine seedlings. In areas where not enough seed trees were left, the soil also was ready to support large numbers of other species, frequently brush and less-desirable hard- wood tree species. The second generation forest that grew back was more diverse and much more crowded. This second generation forest was also little managed until the supply of old growth timber began to run low. By the 1980’s much of the forest land in the West was overcrowded, undermanaged, and overprotected.

At the same time the forest was getting thicker, so were people. The population of the West continued to increase dramatically, with new homes and communities pushing constantly onto what used to be forest lands. This juxtaposition of man’s structures and the forest has come to be known as the “Wildland/Urban Interface” and it is the

85 primary concern of fire protection experts in the new millennium. Each year, somewhere in the West, large wildfires threaten or destroy hundreds of structures, and sometimes even whole towns. The increasing population has also generated greater demands for protection of the environment, resulting in a sharp decline in logging and greatly increased costs for lumber. Today, many competing, and frequently conflicting, special interest groups make managing the wildlands extremely complicated. Our litigious society has made it more difficult to use prescribed fire without some form of protection from liability, limiting our capability to restore the forest to a healthy condition. Too many voices clamor for the protection of a favorite species at the expense of the health of the total ecosystem.

Much work is needed to restore forest health, a condition which will benefit most species, including human beings, in the long run. A healthy forest provides wood, water, wildlife, and recreation. A decadent forest provides increased opportunity for devastating wildfires.

Protecting Watersheds The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS), Denver Water Board, and the U.S. Forest Service have formed a partnership to protect and restore threatened forest watersheds along the South Platte River. Several locations have been identified as being at high risk for catastrophic losses from fire, insects, or disease. Projects have been designed and funded to restore forest health, including a demonstration site at Trumbull. This area was carefully harvested (logged) during the winter of 2000/2001 to achieve several objectives: recreate natural openings, encourage new plant growth in browse species for deer and elk, create grassy meadows with wildflowers used by a R&E butterfly, create uneven-aged timber stands that are more resistant to insect and disease epidemics, increase the diversity of plant species, and reduce the potential for high intensity wildfires (Figure 31).

Figure 30. The Hayman Fire burned over 137,000 acres; most of it in the Denver This effort is a start toward reducing the potential for large, damaging watershed. wildfires such as the Buffalo Creek Fire of 1996, which although it only

86 burned 12,000 acres and only destroyed about a dozen homes, had disastrous consequences for the watershed. In the two years following this fire, the watershed experienced 13 so-called “100-year flood” events, resulting in massive erosion, siltation of streams, and recurring damage to water system facilities costing federal, state, and local taxpayers millions of dollars to repair.

Unfortunately, the Hayman Fire occurred before very much of the landscape at risk could receive treatment. The Hayman Fire did burn into the area of the Polhemus prescribed burn conducted in the fall of 2001. Unfortunately, the prescribed fire did not burn hot enough to substantially reduce the presence of ladder fuels, and thus did not significantly reduce the intensity of the Hayman Fire. The Hayman Fire also ran into the area burned by the Schoonover Fire the previous month, which split the head of the fire, compounding suppression difficul- ties. These events reinforce the need to assure that fuel modifica- tion projects are properly designed, situated, and executed to achieve strategic goals. Figure 31. Thinned and burned pine forest in Colorado. The Forest Service and Denver Water have already spent millions of dollars in rehabilitation of the burned area and in measures designed to minimize erosion and siltation of the reservoir. Much more money will have to be spent to reforest the watershed, with salvage logging of the burned timber providing little cost offset. Even without a major flood situation, the cost of the Hayman Fire to the people of the Denver area will continue to increase in the coming years. In the event a major (or multiple serious) flood occurs, a significant portion of the Denver water system is at risk of damage or destruction.

87 Who Really Benefits From Watershed Fire Protection In the arid West, water is a valuable commodity. So valuable that local, state, and federal governments all heavily subsidize the development, transportation, distribution, and treatment of water. A variety of users benefit from the complex system of reservoirs, canals, and pipelines that move water from the mountain watersheds to developed areas.

The majority of the water in the West is used by agriculture for the production of food and fiber. Vast areas of arid land grow multiple crops during long growing seasons, using 137 billion gallons of water a day. Farm animals and aquaculture (fish farming) account for only about 3% of the total agricultural water demand. Power plants use 130 billion gallons a day, not counting the billions more gallons used by hydroelectric plants, then returned to streams. In- dustry uses 36 billion gallons a day; commercial users account for another 8 billion gallons. A Nearly everybody benefits from typical U.S. household uses about one hundred gallons of water a day – per person, another 25 watershed fire protection. billion gallons.

All of these downstream water users benefit from watershed fire protection in addition to the direct users of the watersheds such as hikers, boaters, hunters, and fishermen. Adequate supplies of good quality water are critical to the success of most of mankind’s endeavors. Properly managed forest lands produce more and better quality water than overstocked decadent forests or than severely burned forest lands.

Some of the characteristics of the current generation of overstocked, decadent forests include:

• Individual trees and shrubs are more easily stressed due to lack of water in dry years due to the effects of over competition for water on crowded sites.

• The dead to live fuel ratio is higher, making the forest subject to higher intensity wildfires.During drought years, heavy die-back adds more dead fuel.

• Stand density (fuel loading) is so high that prescribed fire cannot be safely used.

• There is greater risk of insect and disease epidemics.

88 • Water production is lower, as more trees use more water.

• Marginal streams are more likely to go dry, endangering aquatic life.

• There is greater risk of flooding and erosion after high intensity fires have killed the majority of the vegetation in any watershed.

After a high intensity forest fire, the potential exists for major flooding and serious erosion which can damage roads, bridges, reservoirs, water and sewage systems as well as homes and businesses far downstream. Because we are all taxpayers, we all pay for both the direct costs of putting out large, damaging forest fires and the indirect costs of repairing and replacing the infrastructure damaged by post-fire floods, erosion, and landslides. Therefore, we would all All taxpayers benefit from healthy benefit from efforts to restore forest health, reduce the potential for high intensity wildfires, and forests. improve the volume and quality of water produced by our forests. The National Fire Plan – A Coordinated Approach Kootenai County, Idaho

As the National Fire Plan began to take shape, Idaho Department of Lands, Bureau of Fire Management personnel recognized an opportunity to help Idaho avoid more disastrous fire seasons like that of 2000. Already engaged in a significant cooperative effort with the federal wildland fire agencies to mitigate fire risk, especially in the wildland/urban interface, they focused a good deal of effort on bringing other possible players to the plate and in developing political support for large scale fire mitigation projects.

When the National Fire Plan 10-Year Strategy Implementation Plan was signed by Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne in May, 2002, Idaho fire officials were ready to develop a statewide process for implementing the National Fire Plan in Idaho. Their efforts have lead to a model program for effectively implementing the full potential of the National Fire Plan.

The Idaho Strategy As a result of seven meetings held with State, federal, and local fire and emergency services personnel around the State, Idaho Department of Lands fire managers noted several problems that needed to be overcome to effectively implement the National Fire Plan:

89 • There was a lack of coordinated effort between agencies in some areas.

• There was a lack of understanding of roles and responsibilities between agencies and among the public.

• There was a lack of information sharing among different interdependent programs.

• Local fire and emergency services personnel were overwhelmed by all the programs and paperwork.

During this exploration process, they also discovered an opportunity to combine efforts at wildland fire mitigation planning with the new Federal Emergency Management Agency required Community Mitigation Plans for natural disasters. Accordingly, the Idaho Bureau of Disaster Services was invited to join the statewide planning group.

The Idaho Strategy is based on the following key assumptions that guided the State level planning group. To achieve the objective of mitigating the danger of wildland fire to the citizens, improvements, and natural resources of Idaho:

• Local leadership and local knowledge are key;

• Local decision-making should be facilitated and respected;

• Previous work should not be neglected or negated by the new process.

A wide range of state and federal agencies pooled their efforts to draft the Idaho National Fire Plan Strategy, including: Idaho Association of Counties Idaho Resource Conservation and Development Council Idaho Fire Chiefs Association Idaho State Fire Marshal Idaho Bureau of Disaster Services Idaho Department of Lands Idaho Governor’s Office

90 USDA Forest Service USDI Bureau of Land Management USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs

The Idaho Strategy was approved on July 26th, 2002 and calls for a three-tier approach to implementing the National Fire Plan statewide. At the local level is the county-based group which will conduct risk analysis, prioritize implementation project lists, facilitate implementation among agencies and local interest groups, and provide continuity for mitigation efforts (Figure 32). Typical participants in the county-level groups include:

• Federal agency fire management officials

• State fire management officials (both the Department of Lands and the State Fire Marshal)

• Local fire chiefs

• County Commissioners

• Local and State disaster preparedness officials

• Resource Conservation and Development Councils

• Citizen groups (homeowners associations, service clubs, etc.)

• Special interest groups.

At the State level, the statewide group will provide coordination and oversight, prioritize projects, provide advice and counsel to the county-level groups, provide long-term direction, and explore opportunities to make mitigation projects financially self-sustaining. Members of the statewide group include:

91 • State and Federal fire officials • Idaho Association of Counties • Idaho Fire Chiefs’ Association • Idaho Department of Commerce • Idaho Governor’s Office

The Department of Commerce provides another possible funding source with grants for community development and risk assessment, which can include fire protection planning. Wildfires frequently have significant impacts on local economies, initially good by spurring local purchases of goods and services during wildfire suppression and rehabilitation, but often bad in the long-term as tourism, recreation, and logging decline in post-fire periods.

The third component of the Idaho Strategy for National Fire Plan implementation is a web-based statewide information sharing and coordination method, under the guidance of the statewide group. This information is currently available on the Idaho Department of Lands website (http// www2.state.id.us/lands/news.htm). It allows all participating agencies and any interested individuals to keep up-to-date on National Fire Plan projects statewide, and greatly facilitates the annual reporting requirements to the federal sponsor agencies.

As mentioned earlier, it was discovered that there was an opportunity to combine wildland fire hazard mitigation planning Figure 32. The implantation of the National Fire Plan under the National Fire Plan with the Commu- in Idaho was a statewide effort.

92 nity Mitigation Plans for natural disasters now being required by Federal Emergency Manage- ment Agency before local agencies can be eligible for the Federal Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. Many communities were unaware of the Federal Emergency Management Agency requirement and now will be able to position themselves for that funding source as well as National Fire Plan grants. Funds from various sources were used to fund complementary efforts (Figure 33)

State-level Efforts The Idaho Department of Lands, in cooperation with the federal agencies administers FEMA grant funds can be used for much of the pass-through funding available to local agencies under the National Fire Plan. Two wildfire protection plans. of the oldest aid programs are State Fire Assistance, which provides federal funds to state wildland fire agencies, and Volunteer Fire Assistance, which is directed at local government fire agencies. Under the National Fire Plan, this funding level has been dramatically increased, allowing the Department of Lands not only to improve its own protection system, but to increase its support to local government fire agencies, which are frequently the first responders to wildland fires. Such assistance helps local fire protection districts meet needs ranging from wildland fire safety clothing, to newer, more reliable fire apparatus, to better public education programs. Most of the available funding is prioritized for agencies serving the wildland/urban interface, where homes and people are at greatest risk.

A newer state-level funding source is Rural Fire Assistance monies from the US Depart- ment on Interior agencies, which are targeted at rural fire protection districts to help them improve their capabilities to fight wildland fires more efficiently and safely. These rural fire departments provide critical initial attack fire protection to Figure 33. Funds from various sources were used to fund the complementary millions of acres of programs in Kootenai County.

93 public domain lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and, when properly equipped and trained, can be an important resource for large wildland fires.

Under the National Fire Plan, the Idaho Department of Lands has been able to provide funding for wildfire mitigation projects on more than 13,000 acres of private forest lands in the State. Most of these efforts are aimed at reducing dangerous fuel levels in the woods, frequently by mechanical harvesting or treatment methods, but also with prescribed fire. Usually, fuel loading is so high that some form of fuel treatment is needed before fire can be reintroduced to the woods, especially in the wildland/urban interface.

An example of a cooperative state-level hazard reduction program is the project at Heyburn State Park in the northern Idaho panhandle, where some 70 summer cabins were at serious risk from wildfire in an overcrowded, decadent forest setting. Idaho Department of Lands, in cooperation with the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation, designed a 100-foot wide fuelbreak to protect the park and the cabins from encroaching wildfire (Figure 34). The 1.5 mile fuelbreak was created by a commercial thinning logging operation, followed by mechanical reduction of slash by a contractor. Funding was provided by a $26,000 grant from Idaho Department of Lands, with Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation matching that grant. Almost 75% of the funding that Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation was able to contrib- Figure 34. National Fire Plan money was matched ute was derived from the sale of the harvested timber. with funds from the State parks to construct this fuel break. Idaho Department of Lands will also be sponsoring a FireWise Communities Workshop in Coeur D’Alene on May 21-22, 2003 which will provide an opportunity for local government, fire, emergency services, and planning officials to learn more about protecting communities from encroaching wildfires.

94 Kootenai County FireSmart The county-level planning group in Kootenai County, which encompasses the valuable and desirable Coeur D’Alene Lake recreation area, chose to operate with a centralized, county- wide approach to implementing the National Fire Plan. Organizing under the moniker Kootenai County FireSmart, they obtained a grant from IDOC to do fire planning, and another grant from the Bureau of Land Management Communities at Risk program to do risk assessment for all communities in the county. The risk assessment becomes the basis for both wildland fire mitigation project planning under the National Fire Plan, and also assists communities in developing FireSmart is working hard to reduce their Community Mitigation Plans for Federal Emergency Management Agency. the wildland/urban interface fire problem in Kootenai County, Idaho. Having completed the risk assessment and fire planning, Kootenai County FireSmart was then able to establish its project priorities. With solid local support generated during the planning and risk assessment efforts, they decided to try to undertake an ambitious large-scale hazard fuel treatment that, over three years, would create defensible space around more than 2,000 structures in targeted high risk areas of the county. Under the FireSmart hazard reduction project, homeowners in the high risk areas can get defensible space established on their properties for free, provided they agree to properly maintain the premises for at least ten years (Figure 35 and 36). The program began by utilizing the Fire Educa- tion Corps of the Student Conservation Associa- tion to begin educating owners about the FireSmart project and on the need for defensible space around their Figure 35. Kootenai County FireSmart coordinated the development of homes. The Fire Educa- “defensible space” around hundreds of homes. tion Corps also created

95 model defensible space demonstration sites to help people appreciate the “clean and green” outcome of properly executed fuel hazard reduction projects. With its act together, its assessment completed, and its priorities established, Kootenai County FireSmart was able to land a National Fire Plan grant for $1,816,905 in Fiscal Year 2002 to fund its project.

Meanwhile, Idaho Department of Lands was able to also route SFA, VFA, and RFA funds to eight rural fire departments in Kootenai County, allowing them to not only improve their suppression capability, but to begin to sponsor wildland/urban interface education programs in their communities that should help generate more homeowner interest in the FireSmart hazard reduction project. In total, Kootenai County received nearly $2 million in National Fire Plan Figure 36. Before and after pictures funding. of a home in Kootenai County.

With a good plan, solid initial funding, and the opportunity to leverage additional funding from corporate sponsors and community service organizations, Kootenai County FireSmart is poised to make a serious difference in the fire risk to people and homes in the wildland/urban interface of northern Idaho.

96 The Healthy Forests Initiative Wildfire Prevention and Stronger Communities

In August of 2002, President George W. Bush used the Squires Peak Fire in southwest Oregon as the backdrop for the introduction of a White House-sponsored initiative to improve fire prevention and forge stronger communities by speeding up the approval process for forest thinning and health improvement projects on federal lands.

Standing at a point where the Squires Peak Fire had crowned over a ridge top in dense timber, destroying an on-going logging operation for fuel reduction, the President noted that the 2002 fire season was already one of the worst in modern history, with fires affecting hundreds of communities, necessitating the evacuation of thousands of residents, destroying millions of 190 million acres of federal forest dollars worth of timber, and causing great damage to municipal watersheds. land at risk of catastrophic wildfire.

The initiative stated that catastrophic fires are caused by deteriorating forest and rangeland health due to suppression of fires and lack of active forest and range management practices. It identified 190 million acres of unnaturally dense forests on public land as being at risk of catastrophic wildfires. The report noted that these deteriorated forest and rangelands significantly affect people, property, and ecosystem health and that “enhanced measures are needed to restore forest and rangeland health to reduce the risk of these catastrophic wildfires”. It pointed to “needless” red tape and lawsuits that delay effective implementation of forest health projects, citing several examples in the West.

The initiative includes direction to the secretaries of Agriculture and Interior, and the chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to improve regulatory processes to ensure more timely decisions, greater efficiency, and better results in reducing fire danger and restoring forest health. Key measures include:

• Improving procedures for developing and implementing fuel treatment and forest restoration projects.

• Reducing the number of overlapping environmental reviews.

97 • Developing guidance for weighing the short-term risks against the long-term benefits of treatment projects.

• Developing guidance to ensure consistent NEPA procedures for fuel treatment and forest health projects.

The report also stated that the President would work with Congress on legislation to:

• Authorize federal agencies to enter into long-term stewardship contracts with the private sector, and state and local governments.

• Expedite implementation of fuel reduction and forest health improvement projects.

• Ensure that federal judges consider long-terms risks of harm to people, property, and the environment in deciding challenges to projects.

• Remove a rider that imposed extraordinary procedural requirements on the Forest Service appeal process.

• Fully implement the promises of the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan by removing needless administrative obstacles and renewing the commitment to a balanced conservation strategy.

Key reasons that catastrophic wildfires harm people, property, and the environment were cited as:

• Risk to firefighters • Increased air pollution • Community evacuations • Property damage • Disruption to local economies - Reduced tourism - Damage to municipal watersheds

98 • Environmental damage - Damaged fisheries - Destroyed endangered species habitat - Soil sterilization and erosion - Spread of invasive plant species - Disease and insect infestations

The initiative paper notes that progress has been made in improving fire protection and forest health with recent increases in funding for hazardous fuels treatment projects and additional suppression resources (+ 377 fire engines, 4,900 fire personnel, aircraft, bulldozers, etc.). It identified 1.9 million acres as already treated with thinning or prescribed burning, with another 2.5 million acres slated to be completed by the end of the year.

In referring to the 10-year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan between federal wildfire agencies, affected states, tribal, and local governments, the initiative notes that a key priority of this plan is more active forest and rangeland management to reduce the accumulation of fuels and to restore ecosystem health. This plan also establishes 23 priority tasks for federal, state, and local governments, most importantly:

• Developing and implementing a process for all levels of government to collaborate on fuel treatment and burned area rehabilitation projects. • Developing and implementing consistent and effective contracting, procurement, and grant processes for fuel treatment projects. • Assessing federal regulatory processes and identifying measures to improve timely decision-making.

The document also identifies significant actions the administration is taking to improve the effectiveness of its fuels treatment and forest health improvement programs, including:

• Making procedural improvements • Increasing management effectiveness • Sponsoring critical research • Restoring record amounts of burned forests (BAER)

99 • Providing grants to communities for hazard mitigation plans and projects, market utilization of small-diameter wood materials projects, and cost reimbursement for firefighting efforts • Increasing grants to improve local rural and volunteer fire departments • Enlisting Student Conservation Association (SCA) volunteers

The initiative contends that procedural delays are stalling critical forest and rangeland management projects, citing a FS study, The Process Predicament, with three factors contribut- Procedural delays (“red tape”) stall ing the most to project delays: critical forest health restoration • Excessive analysis projects. • Ineffective public involvement • Management inefficiencies

Several examples are cited where the decision-making and appeals processes are so long that by the time the project is finally approved, it is no longer viable. Reasons include running out of funds, salvage timber deterioration, insect infestations, and wildfires that burn the forest before it can be thinned.

The Healthy Forests Initiative uses the Squires Peak Fire in Oregon as a case study of how properly planned and executed fuel reduction projects can reduce potential wildfire damages, despite the current obstacle course of analysis paralysis.

Finally, the initiative calls for actions to identify ways to put the Northwest Forest Plan, which has yet to come anywhere near its projected level of action, back on track toward restoring a sustainable forest economy in the Pacific Northwest.

The Healthy Forests Initiative is an attempt by the Administration to overcome some of the current obstacles to effective fuels reduction and forest health improvement projects. Unfortu- nately, vocal critics say the Administration is only chipping away at environmental safeguards to speed up logging of old-growth forests. There is a pressing need to find a middle ground where land managers and environmentalists can agree that timely and properly executed fuel reduction projects, including commercial thinning logging operations, can reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire and improve forest health, to the benefit not only of humans, but of all elements of the ecosystem.

100 The Drought and 2002 Fire Season

Fire Season 2002 in the West can be characterized as busy, intense, and difficult, punctuated by record-sized major conflagrations. Nearly 40,000 wildfires burned nearly 7 million acres, not quite as much as in 2000, but far above average.

Record sized major fires occurred in Arizona, Colorado, and Oregon. Major fires occurred throughout the West, from San Diego to Wenatche, and from Gold Beach to the Black Hills.

There are two primary reasons for the widespread, high intensity, destructive major fires of 2002: Fire in the West 2002: 40,000 wildfires; • Drought 7 million acres burned. • Decadent forest health

We have already discussed the forest health issue, and now need to take a look at the extent of the drought conditions in the West.

Drought and Forest Fires in the West Drought is no stranger to southwest United States. Repeated extended dry cycles over thousands of years have lead to the development of desert landscapes composed of species able to withstand extended periods without rain.

Across much of the SW there are only three basic types of forests, each dependent on the amount of water available in the soil annually. At the mid-elevations, above the scrub brush and cactus of the desert floor, where more rainfall occurs due to orographic lifting of the clouds, the Pinyon-Juniper (P-J) forest struggles to survive. P-J forest is characterized by widely spaced to scattered trees, interspersed with the desert scrub and brush species. Only along seasonal water- courses or just below the snowline are you likely to find relatively dense stands of P-J.

Ponderosa Pine is the most common conifer forest type in the SW, occurring at higher elevations where the winter snow pack banks water that the trees can draw on to sustain growth throughout much of the year.

101 In the higher mountains, and along cool, moister canyon walls above the pine belt, a true mixed conifer forest may be found, with Douglas Fir, true firs, incense cedar, etc. mixing with or supplanting Ponderosa Pine.

In recent years, there have been increasing numbers of large, damaging forest fires in the SW. Although to some degree this is the result of forest management practices such as logging Long periods of drought are becoming and fire suppression that have lead to an increase in fuels, a major contributor to this flam- more common in the Southwest. mable situation has been climate variability. Indications are that the climate in much of the West is changing, becoming more variable, with greater extremes than we have experienced throughout much of the last hundred or so years. One of the facets of the “new climate” is increased periods of prolonged drought, which leave the forests tinder dry and more susceptible to serious epidemics of insects, diseases, and intense forest fires.

Drought and Forest Fires Long periods of drought are becoming more common in the SW and can be linked to major fire occurrence. The Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) is a long-term measure of dryness or wetness, not affected by single precipitation events, using a scale ranging from extreme drought (<-4.0) to extreme moist (>4.0). In a 50-year composite of the PDSI for the US, the southwest region scores the driest in the US (Figure 37).

According to Mark W. Patterson of the University of Arizona, in his paper Forest Fires and Drought in the U.S. Southwest, drought conditions influence the occurrence of forest fires in the SW. Fire history data collected from tree-ring analyses was compared to the PDSI, showing that “larger forest fires tend to occur when the PDSI is lower.” Figure 37. The heart of the Nation has historically been in a drought condition...it isn’t anything new.

102 In drought conditions, fire management practices are disrupted, as it is harder to conduct prescribed burns to reduce forest fuel accumulations, and it is harder to make successful initial attack on wildfires. Larger, more intense forest fires frequently result in the loss of homes, wildlife, and recreational opportunities. Even without the fires, drought conditions may diminish recreation by restricting campfires or necessitating closures.

Large, intense forest fires can radically alter significant areas of wildlife habitat, which may adversely impact animal populations, especially endangered species. Drought conditions make it harder to use prescribed fire. Currently, the natural resource agencies of the West are attempting to reintroduce frequent, low-intensity fires to the ecosystem, to try to restore forest health. One of the problems with implementing this policy change in an effective way is that, even in normal precipitation years, the fuel accumulations are too heavy to use fire without first reducing stand density and eliminating ladder fuels which contribute to crown fires. Some environmentalists resist thinning projects, viewing them as logging in disguise. This makes it more expensive to conduct hazard reduction, meaning that fewer acres can be treated with available funds. In drought years, it is nearly impossible to achieve proper fire danger conditions to conduct prescribed burns, even in thinned/treated forests.

Efforts to return forests to pre-fire suppression natural conditions are likely to be compounded by several conditions:

• Increased fuel loading, which makes fires burn more intensely.

• Increased presence of brushy understory vegetation (“ladder fuels”), which lead surface fires into the crowns of trees.

• Increased stand density, with closed canopy forests more susceptible to crown fires.

• Different climatic conditions, resulting in greater fire danger much of the time.

• Different climatic conditions may also affect the succession of species following fire and the survival of various species, both desirable and unwanted.

103 At the start of the 2002, drought was widespread in the U.S. and was especially serious in the SW. Fire season started early, and large fires were common in the spring months, especially in New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado (Figure 38).

Meteorologists had predicted the drought and its accom- The Four Corners region was experi- panying heat wave would persist encing “exceptional drought” in the through the summer from New spring of 2002. Mexico north to Montana and Idaho. As predicted, the drought grew worse, especially for the Figure 38. The drought monitor map for June 4 shows the Southwest and Northern Rockies in a severe drought. Four Corners and eastern Rocky Mountain areas, with much of the West being in severe to exceptional drought conditions by September (Figure 39).

Rainfall in October finally brought an end to the occurrence of large wildfires in the West, but the drought persists. It is unlikely that enough precipitation will occur during a forecast “El Nino” winter to ameliorate the drought conditions in the entire Western US before fire season 2003. Figure 39. The drought monitor map for September 4 still shows the Southwest and Northern Rockies in a severe drought.

104 The 2002 Fire Season

The continuing drought in the West made fire season 2002 the fifth year of severe drought in the last six years. Even in May, the countryside in most states was sere and withered as August in California. The southern Rocky Mountains were the focus of the worst of the drought, with the Four Corners area rated as suffering “exceptional drought”, and rain and snowfall at less than 65% of the annual average (Figure 40).

Colorado suffered the driest spring in its 107-year history of weather records, and Arizona it’s second driest. Colorado had the driest spring in Testament to the drought was weather records history. not difficult to find, as Pinyon Pines in Arizona’s P-J forests withered and died across huge areas. In the mountains, 30% of the water-stressed Ponderosa Pines in the Flagstaff/Williams area had succumbed to bark beetle attacks, leaving the green forest canopy splotched with brown treetops. Reservoirs sported brown bathtub rings, Figure 40. The Drought Monitor map for May 7, 2002 didn’t look good. The Rocky Mountain and South Western states were in extreme and stocks ponds turned into drought conditions. dust bowls.

The drought covered 40% of the country, with the southeast (except Florida this time) also hard hit. In the West, drought conditions ranged from Southern California to Montana, and as far east as western Nebraska and Kansas. Corn crops shriveled. Birds abandoned their nests. Wildflowers failed to bloom. Streams stopped flowing, trapping fish in oxygen-depleted hot tubs; 33,000 salmon and steelhead suffocated in California’s Klamath River. Cities and counties imposed water rationing regulations.

105 Wildland fire officials geared up for an early and severe fire season, and sought budget augmentations to help cope with extreme fire danger in overstocked, decadent forests increasingly crowded with new homes.

Monster Fires Spring Up The best indicator of how a drought-aided spring fire season might shake out could have been the Indian Fire, which started on May 15th in the middle of the afternoon in the Prescott National Forest just south of Prescott, Arizona. Upon arrival of the initial attack resources, the The Indian Fire threatened 2,000 fire was already 10-15 acres in size and beginning to crown and spot in heavy Ponderosa Pine homes in Prescott. forest. Headed uphill in front of a prevailing southwest wind, the Indian fire was charging right at the city. The interagency command teams quickly ordered many engine strike teams for structure protection assignments ahead of the fire, and initiated a heavy air show to try to keep the fire out of town. A tricky firing operation in a fuel reduction project, aided by air support and lessening winds, resulted in containment the first night at 1,365 acres, with only 5 homes lost. 80% of the Indian Fire burned at high intensity, and more than 2,000 homes in Prescott were directly in the path of the fire. Suppression costs were calculated at $1.2 million with $1.8 million in damages.

Near the end of May, three major fires in three different western States hinted at what might be in store for the rest of the summer. On May 21st, the Bullock Fire started in Arizona’s Coronado National Forest, burning 30,563 acres of the Gila River watershed until controlled on June 14th, before the official start of summer. The Borrego Fire in New Mexico’s Santa Fe National Forest started the next day and burned 12,995 acres, racking up nearly $8 million in suppression costs. On the 31st of May in Utah, the human-caused Sanford fire began its march across 64,909 acres of the Dixie National Forest.

June started off with a bang with the Wolf Fire on California’s Los Padres National Forest, which would burn 21,645 acres before being controlled on June 30th, and rack up an incredible (for its size) $18 million in suppression costs. The Ponil Fire in New Mexico started the next day, and cost $14 million to control more than three weeks later, having burned 92,194 acres. On June 5th, two new major fires started, with the Copper Fire on the Angeles National Forest in Southern California burning 23,407 acres and the Big Wash fire in Utah burning 5,400 acres. The first week of June ended with the start of the Hensel Fire in Wyoming, which burned 14,730 acres.

106 In Colorado, by the second week of June, fuel conditions were unprecedented with 1000- hour fuels at historic low levels, the brush fuels already below critical live fuel moisture, and the meager grass crop fully cured (Figure 41). Summer weather The Hayman Fire is the largest fire in had arrived a month early, with Colorado history. temperatures in the 90’s, and relative humidity of 12 percent. All of the ingredients for a conflagration were all in place on June 8th, when a FS employee deliberately started the Hayman Figure 41. The drought picture is worsening in the western states. Fire on the Pike National Forest Even the south is beginning to get behind in rain. southwest of Denver. Hayman would grow to be the largest fire in recorded Colorado history, burning 137,760 acres in four counties. By the time it was finally About 81,000 people evacuated...just controlled more than a month later, the Hayman Fire would burn 600 structures, cost $45 million to suppress, and devastate a major portion of the South Platte River watershed, source in Colorado. of much of Denver’s water supply.

That same day, the Coal Seam Fire started near Glenwood Springs, Colorado and burned 12,209 acres in the next month. As if firefighters needed more work, the next day saw the start of the Missionary Ridge Fire (70,485 acres) on the San Juan NF in southwestern Colorado. The Missionary Ridge Fire would threaten multiple communities in its three-week life span, spawn a fire tornado, and cost an astounding $41 million dollars to control. In the months of June and July, 2002, major fires in Colorado would threaten at least 140 subdivisions all over the State, necessitating the evacuation of about 81,000 people.

Just to keep the few uncommitted fire crews on their toes, the Blue Cut Fire on Southern California’s San Bernardino National Forest started its rampage across 6,864 acres on June 16th.

107 While great numbers of suppression resources were being committed to the Hayman and other Colorado fires, Arizona was about to break back into the big fire spotlight. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Fort Apache Agency, with fire protection jurisdiction for the 1.6 million acre White Mountain Apache Indian Reservation had sent crews, engines, and overhead to Colorado, and was painfully aware of the shortage of air tankers, helicopters, and Type 1 crews. On June 18th, at about 1600 hours, the Rodeo Fire started about 2 miles northeast of the town of Cibecue, in the northwest corner of the reservation. With record low fuel moisture and humidity (2%), the fire, set by an Indian fire crew member in hopes of employment, burned 15 acres in the first 13 minutes and established a good lead over the initial attack resources. Two days later, with a major fire at hand and scarce resources finally starting to arrive in staging areas, the Fort Apache Agency received a report of a new fire, this one started by a lost hiker. BIA immediately diverted air resources from the Rodeo Fire and heavily augmented the initial attack The Rodeo-Chediski Fire burned more dispatch with ground resources from staging, nearly containing the Chediski fire at about 40 than 100,000 acres in one day! acres. But the wind kicked up, the fire spotted across shaky containment lines, hit the extra dry timber, and quickly spread to more than 10,000 acres by nightfall. Both fires were plume dominated forest fires, with frequent collapses of the thunderheads atop the convection columns spreading fire in all directions each afternoon. Once the two fires merged on June 23rd, not even the bare rock face of the Mogollon Rim could keep them from spreading north and threatening a dozen resort and summer home communities at the edge of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. In the end, the Rodeo-Chediski Fire would become the largest in Arizona history and easily the biggest fire in the West in many decades (at least for about a month). The final toll was 468,863 acres, with 466 structures and 400 million board feet of timber destroyed. In one day (June 23rd), the fire burned more than 100,000 acres! Suppression costs were estimated at $60 to 70 million, but damages are still being calculated. Arizona was certainly back in the fire news.

But June’s fire legacy was not over yet over for Colorado. On June 19th, the undervalued Million Fire ($9,400,000 suppression cost) was started on the Rio Grande National Forest and burned 9,346 acres before being controlled. Three days later, the Spring Creek Complex of lightning fires broke out on the White River National Forest in west central Colorado, burning 13,490 acres in the next month. During this same period, major fires started in New Mexico, with the Roybal Complex of lightning fires burning 5,666 acres by the end of June, and in Utah, where the Rattle Complex burned until August, covering 94,519 acres. The last of the major fires to start in June was the Grizzly Gulch Fire in South Dakota, which burned 10,771 acres between June 29th and July 23rd.

108 While these major fires continued to burn, the first week in July brought progress. The situation report for Monday, July 8th noted that although 244 new fires had been reported the previous day, only seven of them became large fires, and six existing large fires had been controlled. All of this activity occurred on a day when 25 major fires were still burning in the West. Windy, hot, and dry weather was forecast to continue, with Wyoming targeted for highest fire danger. But on July 9th, the appropriately named Burn Canyon Fire (31,300 acres) on the Grand Mesa National Forest in west central Colorado and the Eyerly Complex of lightning fires (23,573 acres) in Oregon started, edging the stubborn Mule Fire (3,932 acres), which started in Wyoming the next day, out of the headlines. On a typical day in the middle of fire season, 25-30 major fires were th July 12 brought dry thunderstorms to central and southern Oregon, touching off hundreds burning. of new fires (Figure 42). The largest of these would be the Toolbox Complex on the Fremont National Forest in south-central Oregon, which would burn more than 120,000 acres before being finally controlled nearly two months later. The Monument-Malheur Complex (44,062 acres) on the Malheur National Forest, the North Umpqua Complex (1,663 acres) and the Tiller Complex (69,000 acres) on the Umpqua National Forest, and the Winter Fire (35,779 acres) in the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) also started on that day. The next day brought the discovery of many new fires, three of which would grow to become major fires. The 747 Complex, on the O & C timberlands of the BLM, with fire protection contracted to Dry lightning hit Oregon hard! the ODF, would grow to 16,856 acres before being controlled on August 5th. The Sour Biscuit Complex on the Siskiyou Na- tional Forest in southwestern Oregon would burn 41,897 acres and cost $8 million to suppress. But the “mother of all fires” for the 2002 fire season was also discovered on the Siskiyou National Forest. Renamed the Figure 42. The situation isn’t changing in the west. Colorado, Biscuit Fire after smaller fires Arizona and New Mexico are ripe for major fires. 109 merged, this monster would burn nearly one half million acres, including nearly all of the Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area, threaten several towns (only 13 structures were lost), and burn into California’s Smith River National Recreation Area before being finally controlled on September 30th following wetting rains. Suppression costs for the Biscuit Fire were estimated at Giant sequoia groves threatened by an unbelievable $149 million. McNally Fire. While Oregon bore the brunt of the new major fire business for much of July, significant new large fires cropped up elsewhere. On July 12th, the Gate Complex of lightning fires near Carson City on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest started, eventually burning 9,900 acres and getting Nevada on the charts. On July 15th, the Deer Point Fire started in Washington’s Wenatchee National Forest, spreading across more than 42,000 acres, and running up $15 million in suppression costs. Far to the south, the McNally Fire started in the Kern River watershed of the Sequoia National Forest in California on July 21st. In its 64-day life, the McNally Fire would become the biggest fire in the history of the Sequoia National Forest (well known for major fires) at 150,000 acres, threaten some of the largest stands of Giant Sequoia trees, and provide lots of photo ops for the Southern California news media. This fire, which Pine Fire destroys 153 structures. cost $59 million to suppress, also was set by an irrational human being. The next day, the lightning-caused Stanza Fire on the Klamath National Forest in far northern California began burning 2,880 acres. Also on July 22nd, the Garden Valley Complex of lightning fires started on the Boise National Forest in Idaho, eventually burning only 1,131 acres, but costing over $8 million to suppress.

The last two major fires to start in July were the East Fork in Utah on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest on the 28th, and the Pines Fire in the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s San Diego Unit on the 29th. The Pines Fire would cover 61,690 acres of rugged chaparral mountains and destroy 153 structures before being controlled on August 22nd at a cost of $27 million. The situation report for July 30, 2002 noted 32 major fires burning in the West, and forecast a warning for dry lightning and gusty winds in Montana.

The first two weeks of August brought a break in new major fire occurrence, but things began to pick up around the middle of the month. On August 12th, the Mount Zirkel Complex of lightning fires started, burning 31,016 acres on the Routt National Forest in north-central Colorado. On the 16th, the Apple Fire started on the Umpqua National Forest in Oregon, burning 17,600 acres with more than $18 million in suppression costs.

110 Also on the 16th of August, the Battle Creek Fire in South Dakota started its run across 13,700 acres. August wound down with only one more new major fire, the Commissary Ridge Fire, which burned 3,500 acres in Wyoming.

September started off with a bang, with the Curve Fire on Southern California’s Angeles National Forest burning 20,857 acres (and 73 structures), with suppression costs totaling more than $14 million. Comparative peace and quiet reigned for most of the rest of September, with major fires Lightning was again the primary all over the West being brought under control and many weary fire crews finally returning to their cause of major fires, but several were home bases. A series of fires in California near the end of the month rounded out the 2002 Fire arson. Season. The Williams Fire on the Angeles National Forest burned 36,530 acres and 76 structures starting on the 22nd of September. The Croy Fire in CDF’s Santa Clara Unit burned 3,127 acres and 34 structures on the 23rd. The Cone Fire on the Lassen National Forest in northeastern California was the last major fire of the season, burning 2,006 acres starting on the 26th.

Summary The 2002 Fire Season, while not quite as big as the 2000 Fire Season, will nevertheless go down in the record books:

· Federal Fires 17,000 for 4.5 million acres. · State Fires 67,000 for 2.6 million acres. · Total Fires 87,000 for 7.3 million acres.

Observations and Success Stories As happened in the 2000 Fire Season, this year the primary cause of the major fires in the west was lightning, and most originated on federal land. Given that the National Forest and Public Do- main lands in the West contain some of the highest mountains and most remote, unpopulated area, it is to be expected that these areas would receive the biggest share of lightning. Given that:

• The Federal lands, especially the National Forests, have gone nearly unmanaged during the “analysis paralysis” of the past decade, it is reasonable to expect that it will be more difficult to control multiple fires in these decadent forest and brush lands;

• The West was in a state of severe to extreme drought this summer, it is reasonable to expect that fires would burn with increased intensity and be more resistant to control;

111 • There were 25-35 major fires burning at any time during the fire season (Figures 43), it is reasonable to expect that there would be significant shortages of scarce suppression resources, especially air tankers and helicopters;

• The wildland/urban interface in the West continues to expand, it is reasonable to expect that large numbers of structures may be threatened by any major fire;

• Few states have stringent FireSafe regulations and a large proportion of property owners in the wildland/urban interface are still resistant to creating and maintaining defensible space around their homes, it is reasonable to expect that large numbers of structures will be lost in major fires;

• Fires under these conditions will burn erratically, it is to be expected that firefighters and civilians will be endangered, injured, and killed fighting wildfires; Shortages of limited resources (e.g., airtankers, helicopters) persisted • Some agencies are still reluctant to enter into closest resource cooperative agreements, and throughout the fire season. fail to do advance strategic and operational planning and joint training with adjacent agencies, it is to be expected that some fires will be mismanaged, escape initial attack, and grow too large to handle until the weather moderates;

• Many local rural fire departments are under staffed, under trained, and under equipped, it is reasonable to expect that many fires will escape initial attack suppression efforts;

• Many local governments think that hazard reduction is not their responsibility, it is reasonable to expect that the WUI problem will continue to worsen; and

• These larger, more intense fires are more difficult to suppress and threaten more structures each year, it is reasonable to expect that suppression costs will be horrendous.

Fire Season 2002 certainly met all of these expectations. While the total acreage burned may not exceed that of 2000, the fires were every bit as bad, and the toll on our forests, soils, watersheds, wildlife, scenery, homes, and local economies were just as devastating.

112 Despite the bad news, there are success Large and Damaging Fires 2002 Fire Season Month stories and important lessons hidden by the May June July August September October smoke from the fires of 2002: Arizona 21 Bullock, 30,563 ac, 7 structures 21 Rodeo/Chediski Complex, 468,638 ac, 496 structures 15 Pack Rat Complex, 3,470 ac • Crown fires generally dropped down to California 1 Wolf, 21,645 ac the surface wherever they encountered fuel 5 Cooper, 23,407 ac. 26 structures 16 Bluecut, 6,864 ac reduction projects or old burns, proving that 13 Mussolini, 3,260 ac 21 McNally, 150,696 ac such projects make wildfires easier to 22 Stanza, 2,880ac 29 Pines, 61,690 ac, 153 structures contain. 1 Curve, 20,857 ac, 73 structures 22 Williams, 36,530 ac, 76 structures 23 Croy, 3,127 ac, 34 structures 26 Cone, 2,006 ac • Much of the hazard reduction work being Colorado 21 Schoonover, 3860 ac. 13 structures funded by the National Fire Plan is being 8 Coal Seam, 12,209 ac, 43 structures 8 Hayman, 137,760 ac, 600 structures done in strategic locations that will help 9 Missionary Ridge, 70,662 ac, 77 structures 19 Million, 9,346 ac, 13 structures protect communities from wildfires. 22 Spring Creek Complex, 13,490 ac 9 Burn Canyon, 31,300 ac 14 Green Creek, 4,400 ac 17 Big Elk, 4,413 ac, 3 deaths • Efforts by agencies to work cooperatively 12 Mt Zirkel, 31,016 ac Idaho pay off when time comes to operate under 22 Garden Valley Complex, 1,131 ac New Mexico Area Command teams or MACS groups, 22 Borrego, 12,995 ac, 1 structure 2 Ponil, 9,194 ac because the players know each other, the 13 Roybal, 5,666 ac Nevada rules of the game, and what to expect from 12 Gate Complex, 9,900 ac, 2 structures each agency involved. Oregon 9 Eyerly Complex, 23,573 ac, 37 structures 12 North Umpqua Complex, 1,663 ac 12 Tool Box Complex, 120,085 ac • Wildland fire training provided to local 12 Monument-Malheur Complex, 44,062 ac 12 Winter, 35,894 ac, 5 structures fire agencies makes them a useful part of fire 12 Tiller Complex, 69,000 ac 13 Biscuit (Florence) 499,945 ac, 13 structures control efforts, rather than a pain in the rear. 13 Sour Biscuit, 41,897 ac 13 747 Complex, 16,856 23 Cache Mountain, 4,200 ac South Dakota • When agencies cooperate, limited funds 29 Grizzly Gulch, 10,771 ac, 22 structures 16 Battle Creek, 13,700 ac, 4 structures can be leveraged with other funding sources Utah 31 Sanford, 64,909 ac and volunteer efforts to accomplish larger 5 Big Wash, 5,400 ac 20 Rattle Complex, 94,519 ac, 2 structures projects. 28 East Fork, 14,208 ac, 55 structures Washington 15 Deer Point, 42,674 ac, 5 structures • Preplanning, joint training, hazard reduc- Wyoming 7 Hensel, 14,730 ac, 7 structures tion, closest resource interagency response, 11 Mule, 3,932 ac and interagency local incident management 29 Commissary Ridge, 3,500 ac, 2 structures teams pay off in fires in the wildland/urban interface contained early, with minimal Figure 43. There were over 40 major fires in the West. structure loss. 113 Safety and Wildland Firefighting Strategy

A strategy is a consciously selected approach to achieving a goal. In wildland firefighting, the goal is frequently to first contain (stop the spread) and then control (extinguish) the fire. Sometimes the goal may be modified with qualifiers such as time constraints, administrative restraints, or fiscal limitations, thus complicating the fire manager’s mission. Selection of an When in offensive mode, you go after appropriate strategy early in the game is one of the keys to successful firefighting. the fire. Offensive Strategy An offensive strategy is one in which the fire manager elects to use his resources to go after the fire “here and now”; i.e. under the conditions as they currently exist in the place the fire is now located. This is not necessarily direct attack in which suppression resources must work directly on the fire edge, but more a philosophical choice about which has the upper hand When in defensive mode, you protect at the moment, the fire or the suppression force. An offensive strategy is the correct choice valuable property. when the current and expected fire behavior is within parameters that allow available suppression resources to be effective and the location of the fire is readily accessible to the suppression force. A roadside grass fire on a normal summer afternoon is an example of a situation where an offensive strategy is appropriate. When in avoidance, you avoid risk at all cost. Defensive Strategy A defensive strategy is one in which the fire manager decides that direct attack on the fire under current conditions or in its present location is not practical and it is prudent to back off to a more advantageous location or wait for conditions to change. A defensive strategy is the correct choice when fire behavior exceeds the capabilities of the available suppression resources, or the fire is not immediately accessible to the suppression force. A running brush fire on a steep slope with no road access for ground resources is an example of a situation where a defensive strategy, such as backing off to a ridgetop road for a firing operation well in advance of the fire head, may be appropriate.

Avoidance Strategy Avoidance strategy is where the fire manager decides not to confront the fire at all, thus avoiding the risk of selecting an inappropriate strategy. This situation occurs not because a fire manager has “chickened out”, but because an agency has created a set of constraints on the fire manager that are so onerous as to preclude any chance of success.

114 The fire manager is forced to withdraw the suppression force completely and retreat to the relative safety of an administrative facility to await a change in conditions that would invalidate the constraints. An example of avoidance strategy would be the current “disengagement criteria” foisted on the Forest Service by OSHA in the aftermath of the unnecessary firefighter fatalities on the Thirty Mile Fire.

Recently there has been considerable debate, mostly initiated by the inexperienced and subscribed to by the uniformed, that Fire Order #1: “Fight fire aggressively, but provide for safety first” is an oxymoron. That is to say that aggressive firefighting is inherently unsafe. This erroneous hypothesis has lead to the new vision of firefighter safety espoused in the Thirty Mile Fire Order #1: Fight fire aggressivley, Fire OSHA report that firefighters should be removed from exposure to heat and smoke when a but provide for safety first. wildfire is active enough to be “dangerous”. This has resulted in the totally new concept of “disengagement criteria” under which, when the fire acts up, everybody goes home.

The problem with the concept of disengagement is that it assumes wildfires are homog- enous masses of light source energy that can be measured and compared to a set of arbitrary criteria, resulting in a scientifically correct answer to an unanswerable question. Fires are not homogeneous, and even in the worst fire behavior conditions, there are places and circumstances on nearly every fire where effective fire control work can be done in relative safety. On a wind-driven fire, this means starting at the heel and working the flanks, avoiding the dangerous head of the fire until the wind dies down. On a high intensity timber fire it means backing off and constructing indirect control lines well in advance of the fire front. It means staying out of chimneys above chaparral brush fields where fires can quickly flare up. It means making a concentrated control effort in those places that are relatively safe at those times when fire intensity is least (e.g. night).

Total disengagement from a wildfire is not a safety enhancement, it is a dereliction of duty. While there may be times in the worst of fire behavior situations where the most prudent course of action is to fall back, retreat should never become surrender. When forced to leave a section of line, firefighters should regroup, reassess, redeploy, gain additional suppression resources, and recommit at another location where they can effectively employ productive tactics.

115 Disengagement allows a fire to grow larger, burn more intensely, and threaten more resources, property, and people. Disengagement is inaction rather than action. Disengagement is admitting you don’t know what you are doing.

Failure to fight fire strategically and aggressively actually increases the level of danger to which firefighters and civilians may be exposed by allowing fires to become larger, more intense, and longer lived. Disengagement is not a solution to firefighter injuries and deaths; it is only an avoidance strategy.

Failure to fight fire aggressively actu- Effectively implementing Fire Order #1 should be the first priority of all wildland fire ally increases the level of danger. agencies. Firefighter safety can be enhanced by:

• Improving the level of training and experience of fireline supervisors;

• Improving the level of fire behavior training made available to all firefighters;

• Equipping each firefighter with a portable radio and a smoke mask;

• Establishing defensible space around structures worth protecting;

• Providing appropriate command and control of suppression forces;

• Obtaining more reliable and efficient fire apparatus;

• Establishing automatic/mutual aid agreements to improve the availability of scarce resources;

• Reducing the reliance on contract fire crews;

• Utilizing air tankers for initial attack.

Avoiding the avoidance strategy situations should become a mantra for fire managers, for avoidance strategy robs you of choices and commits you to a predetermined, and probably inappropriate, action.

116 Why Fires Will Get Bigger, Costlier and more Damaging In our investigation of major fires in recent years, several major factors are frequently identified that can explain why fires continue to get bigger and more expensive to control. In most major fires, two or more of these factors combine to result in a fire that is beyond the capability of the suppression system to control until one or more of these factors is reduced or eliminated. The concept is similar to accident investigation theory, where usually several “little” factors add up to serious consequences.

Contributing Factors To illustrate this concept, we developed a sidebar graphic, Why fires will get bigger!, to highlight the presence or absence of these contributing factors in any given fire story.

Following is a more detailed explanation of the components of each of these significant factors:

Weather Conditions • Drought includes warmer, drier weather making fire danger higher;

• Wind has greater influence on high intensity fires;

• More ignitions are likely in warm, dry weather;

• Hot weather reduces firefighter effectiveness;

• Vegetation is drier and more flammable;

• The dead-live fuel ratio in most species is higher;

117 • Drier fuels are easier to ignite;

• Drier fuels burn with greater intensity and are more difficult to extinguish;

• Water sources may be less available.

Fuel Conditions • The high fuel volumes in decadent forests;

• There are more dead fuels which are highly flammable;

• Heavy fuels burn with greater intensity;

• Heavy fuels are more resistant to control efforts.

Wildland/Urban Interface • More people mean more fires;

• Structure protection workload detracts from perimeter control effort;

• More complex strategy situations are likely.

Inadequate Pre-suppression • Lack of fuelbreaks/firebreaks makes containment more difficult;

• Lack of thinning/slash treatment makes more fuel available;

• Inability to control regrowth reduces effective life span of treatment projects;

118 • Lack of prescribed burning means more available fuel.

Failed Suppression Action • Lack of immediate, aggressive initial attack;

• Not using the “closest available resources” regardless of agency;

• Lack of interagency cooperation reduces efficiency;

• Administrative constraints (e.g. wilderness areas, ESA, etc.) limit suppression force effectiveness.

Suppression Costs and Damages In most instances, these factors also contribute to the final cost of suppression. Not only is there a relationship between fire size and suppression cost, there is a relationship between fire complexity and suppression cost. Any time that a wildfire occurs in the WUI, more resources will be needed on Initial Attack to protect the structures that will immediately be threatened. Fires in the WUI will require more air tankers and helicopters than fires in the wilderness, just to protect improvements. Frequently these additional forces will be from outside agencies under some type of agreement for hire, driving up suppression costs.

119 Higher intensity fires will require more people to control and take longer to extinguish, resulting in more overtime and higher costs.

As more improvements are added in the wildland/urban interface, more structures will be lost, and damages will increase. Higher intensity fires will do more damage to timber, water, recreation, and soil, all of which are of increasing economic importance.

Thus, without mitigation of as many of these factors as possible, fires will continue to get more costly, not just because they are larger, but also because they are more damaging and more complex to manage.

120 Major Fires Space does not permit any worthwhile discussion of all the major fires of the 2002 fire season. The authors selected as examples two major fires in two states that we thought were especially important to understanding the severity of the 2002 fire season. We also selected two fires in two states that did not become large, damaging fires as worthy examples of how effective interagency presuppression and suppression efforts can stop fires at reasonable sizes and costs, despite severe fire danger.

We did not prepare a biography of the biggest fire (Biscuit – OR) because it originated in and burned mostly FS wilderness, a scenario covered in detail in the Fire Season 2000 report. Eight states had fires that qualified We selected the Hayman Fire (CO) because it was multi-jurisdictional, impacted multiple for FEMA reimbursement in 2002. NFP-funded projects, threatened and destroyed a lot of structures, and placed in jeopardy a major portion of the South Platte River watershed that is so critical to the water supply for Denver.

We selected the Rodeo-Chediski Fire (AZ) because the starts were human-caused, the fire agency was affected by reduced availability of IA resources due to other major fires, fire behavior was dominated by drought conditions, and the fire simultaneously threatened multiple communities, some of which had NFP-funded projects.

We selected the Squires Peak Fire (OR) because it occurred in an area where interagency cooperation is good, multiple hazard reduction projects are being strategically coordinated, and the area is representative of the rural wildland/urban interface condition.

We selected the Indian Fire (AZ) because it is a classic wildland/urban interface fire problem that had a successful outcome due to effective interagency cooperation.

We hope the biographies of these four fires contain lessons that are important to the improvement of the wildland fire protection system in the West.

121 The Squires Peak Fire – Oregon The Applegate River watershed of southwestern Oregon is an interior basin west of Medford that carries runoff from the Siskiyou Mountains northwest into the Rogue River. The area is characterized by rugged mountains with many small valleys along feeder streams. Cover type is primarily mixed conifer forest with scattered, but significant, patches of oak woodland. The area is bordered to the south and the southwest by the Siskiyou National Forest, on the south by the Rogue River National Forest, and on the east by private lands, mostly timber company holdings and large ranches.

Checkerboard ownership patterns Much of the Applegate River watershed is a checkerboard pattern of public domain lands complicate fire protection projects. and private lands. Towns are small and scattered, but much of the private land is developed and occupied. The population is increasing and the Wildland/Urban Interface problem is growing. As the lumber industry has declined in the area and unemployment increased, many local landowners have subdivided and sold off part of their holdings to make enough money to stay in the area. The newcomers (primarily retirees) are building larger homes on smaller parcels, and the growth appears to be sustained.

The Medford District is the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) largest administrative unit, with large blocks of commercial timberland of increasing value. There is a large staff dedicated to managing the forest resources on the public lands, which are capable of providing significant revenue, and are managed for sustained timber yield under the O and C Act of 1937.

Fire Hazard and Risk The area is mixed conifer forest and oak woodland, with interspersed patches of brush and frequent large meadows (Figures 44 and 45). Much of the forest has been logged, and is second or third generation regrowth. The climate is on the dry side, with long hot summers, and cool, moist winters. Much of the rainfall is intercepted by the Coast Range Mountains to the west, although the Siskiyou Mountains are high enough to receive substantial amounts of rain and snow at the higher elevations. From May through October there is little rainfall, except from scattered thunderstorms that form over the mountains. Summer temperatures are frequently in the 90’s and relative humidity is low. High fire danger is normal in the summer, and in normal years extreme fire danger is present for at least 30 days, longer in drought years.

122 Because of the checkerboard ownership patterns, there may be a wide variety of land management strategies in a relatively small geographic area. Little of the public land is in large enough blocks to be managed on a strategic scale, and there are not many large landowners on the private side. Much of the undeveloped land is in absentee ownership and held for speculation, with little Projects on multiple ownerships must direct intensive management. As a result, there has been a be linked to achieve strategic goals. Bureau of Land Management significant build up of fuels and Figure 44. Untreated oak/pine forest in SW Oregon. much of the area is overstocked with trees and thick with brush undergrowth. Canopy closure is common and ladder fuels are abundant.

Most wildfires in the Applegate River watershed are human-caused, although lightning from thunderstorms that build up over the higher mountains can become a significant risk factor at times. Major lightning busts occurred in this area in 1987, 1995, and 2000.

The Applegate River water- Bureau of Land Management shed is a fire-dependent ecosys- Figure 45. Site after thinning and slash treatment. tem with numerous fire-adapted

123 species of plants and animals dependent on fire to recycle nutrients, regulate plant succession and wildlife habitat, maintain biological diversity, reduce biomass, and control insects and diseases. Unfortunately, wildfires are becoming larger, more intense, and more difficult to control.

Fire Protection Wildland fire protection is provided by the U.S. Forest Service (FS) for national forest Use of “closest available resources” system lands and by the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) for private lands. To avoid strengthens initial attack. duplication of services in the checkerboard ownerships, BLM has contracted fire protection for the public lands it manages to ODF.

Private property structural fire protection is provided by a number of Fire Protection Districts (FPDs), funded by a combination of property taxes, special assessments and bonds, and donations. Typical of these districts is the Applegate Valley Rural Fire Protection District No. 9 (AVRFD9) which has six stations, but only a small paid staff, with mostly volunteer firefighters.

The fire protection agencies have a high level of cooperation, with joint training and interagency fire management teams (Type 2) being the norm. Use of “the closest available resources” for initial attack is practiced, regardless of jurisdiction. A typical response to a wildfire in the Applegate River watershed would include ODF, FS, and FPD resources in the initial attack dispatch. During critical fire weather additional contract dozers and water tenders may be put on standby.

Preparedness Several years ago, concerned citizens in the Applegate River Valley formed a non-profit, tax-exempt, charitable organization called the Applegate Partnership to address critical watershed and forest health issues in their area. One of the major focuses was to restore and improve river conditions for migrating salmon and steelhead. To this end, the Applegate River Water- shed Council (ARWC) was formed and was successful in obtaining grant funds from a variety of sources for several river restoration projects.

In undertaking these projects, it soon became apparent to the participants that watershed conditions, and indeed the health of the entire ecosystem, was directly related to forest health issues that were directly related to fire protection and fuel management issues. The scope of the

124 partnership has expanded to become a community-based resource conservation and management project involving the federal and state natural resources agencies, conservation and environmental groups, the timber industry, and local citizens. It facilitates cooperation in the use of land and resource management practices that promote ecosystem health and diversity. (For more information, see www.ARWC.org).

The partnership has come to recognize the roles (both helpful and harmful) of fire in their watershed and the importance of managing fires (both prescribed and wild) to maximize beneficial effects and minimize damages to the ecosystem. Its newspaper, Applegator, has become an important and effective tool in educating local residents about the importance of hazard reduction and preparedness for wildfires. The partnership continues to be a broad-based coalition of players making effective contributions to significant improvements in fire protection.

The National Fire Plan in Action The Applegate Partnership and it participating agencies were in excellent position to take full advantage of grant funding opportunities that became available under the National Fire Plan (NFP). In 2001, the Applegate Partnership received a NFP grant to prepare a comprehensive fire protection strategy for the communities in the Applegate River watershed. The plan is not a detailed tactical plan, but a compilation of collaborative concepts, strategies, and goals that can be used to effectively plan specific land management projects and activities that will contribute to ecosystem health.

Commonly known as the Applegate Fire Plan, the document establishes the following primary goals:

1. To improve community awareness of the concept of land stewardship, and foster respect for ecosystems and the processes that maintain them;

2. To develop a wide array of strategies for fuel reduction and fire suppression that residents can accept as sensible precautions against catastrophic fire and that the land managers can incorporate into their management practices;

125 3. To develop a system of emergency communications for the Applegate neighborhoods; and

4. To restore fire-adapted species in the ecosystem, encouraging more fire-resilient forests.

The plan identifies the fire regimes and condition classes that define fire hazard in the 500,000- acre watershed. It talks about the risk of fire from a variety of human activities, and the increase in fire occurrence that comes with increased population. It defines 19 Strategic Planning Areas (SPAs) based on combinations of small watersheds. It covers the effects of fire on vegetation, soils, water, Applegate Fire Plan: air, and animals, as well as scenic and property values. Awareness The Applegate Fire Plan suggests hazard reduction strategies that begin at the Wildland/Urban Strategies Interface in high hazards zones (“communities at risk”), then the lands immediately adjacent to Communications homes and roads, then all lands in high fire hazard areas, and finally any areas where fire can contrib- Restoration ute to or detract from ecosystem health. It focuses on the concept of “hazard reduction without borders,” where all agencies and landowners cooperate to achieve strategic goals of hazard reduction of general benefit to the community as a whole. Specific hazard reduction recommendations were developed for each of the 19 SPAs. It describes a variety of method- ologies for fuel reduction, and the sites to which each is most suited (Figures 46, 47 and 48). The plan defines various levels of defensible space for various combinations of slope and fuel loading, as well as providing guidelines for fire resistant plantings. Bureau of Land Management The Applegate Fire Plan Figure 46. BLM fuel reduction block adjacent to a subdivision in the summarizes existing policies, Applegate River Valley, OR. statutes, and regulations at the

126 federal, state, and local levels that relate to fire protection. Interest- ingly, the Jackson and Josephine County fire safety requirements are stricter than the new Oregon state requirements which do not take effect until 2004.

The Plan proposes a strategy for emergency communications planning at the neighborhood level to insure better fire reporting, neighborhood notifica- tion, and receiving and dissemi-

Bureau of Land Management nating fire information from the Figure 47. “Slash Buster” at work in oak woodland in SW Oregon. fire agencies. It provides information on escape routes, safety zones, and evacuation routes, and checklists for home fire safety measures. It provides resource information for land management planning and fire protection planning, including possible funding sources for projects and guidelines for hiring contractors.

To measure accomplishments, the Plan establishes a monitoring team to track projects and gather data on project effectiveness 5 and 10 years after completion. Finally, the Plan Bureau of Land Management identifies an even dozen specific Figure 48. Southwest Oregon oak woodland after treatment. things that agency personnel and

127 residents can do to make the plan a viable, efficient, and effective way to reduce fire hazard, increase fire preparedness, and improve forest health in the Applegate community.

Other National Fire Plan Projects Applegate Valley Rural Fire Protection District No. 9, in cooperation with ODF, has obtained two grants with total funding of $250,000 for fuel reduction efforts in the district. The money will be used to reimburse costs to property owners who complete projects to achieve defensible space around their homes according to the standards established in the Applegate Fire Plan.

BLM’s Medford District has received additional funding which will allow it to expand its fire management activities and complete more of the thinning and fuel reduction projects it has had planned for some time. Staffing has doubled, and project funds should support an increase in treated area from 8,000-9,000 acres per Bureau of Land Management Figure 49. Untreated pine forest near Squires Peak Fire. year to 10,000-13,000 acres per year. BLM awarded a five-year, $20 million contract to two contractors to do fuels treatment work on the public lands in the Medford District (Figures 49 and 50). Because fuel loading is too high to use prescribed fire in initial applications, much of the area will be thinned and mechanically treated (e.g. Slashbuster, etc.), then burned at a later date.

The Medford District received $8.6 million in NFP funds for federal fiscal year 2002, which allows it to increase

its fuel reduction acreage target Bureau of Land Management to 23,000 acres. NFP funding Figure 50. Pine forest after commercial thinning cut with slash ready allows BLM to do more hazard for winter burning.

128 reduction work outside the commercial timber belt and adjacent to communities at risk (Figures 51 and 52). Cost estimates for post-logging hazard reduction work in southwest Oregon are listed as:

• Mechanical slash treatment $300-400/acre • Manual slash treatment $800-1200/acre • Prescribed burn $200-300/acre

ODF has established cost-share fuel treatment programs to assist landowners in 18 of the 26 designated communities at risk in southwestern Oregon. Nineteen communities and nonprofit organizations have received 29 grants totaling $4.3 million in the last two years. ODF has Southwest Oregon has 26 received an additional $2.25 million which it has used to assist 640 landowners to achieve communities-at-risk. defensible space.

ODF and BLM work cooperatively with each other and with private landowners to achieve fuel reduction projects that are linked across property lines to achieve pre-planned strategic hazard reduction goals. Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management Figure 51. Direct attack dozer line contained the Squires Peak Fire in Figure 52. Backing surface fire in thinned pine/fir/oak stand. areas that had been thinned.

129 The Squires Peak Fire The Squires Peak Fire began from a lightning strike during a typical summer afternoon thunderstorm in the vicinity of Squires Peak, about 17 miles west of Ashland, Oregon on Satur- day, July 13, 2002 at about 1700 hours.

There was little rainfall with the thunderstorm, and the conditions were just right for the fire to burn aggressively in heavy fuels all through the first night. On Sunday, the fire continued to spread, with suppression efforts being frustrated by inaccessible terrain, erratic winds, and spot fires. On Monday and Tuesday, suppression efforts started to pay off, and where fuel treatment projects (logging, thinning, burns, etc.) had taken place, the fire remained a surface fire vulnerable to direct attack (Figure 52). Crews were able to construct direct dozer and hand lines in many areas, and go indirect with follow-up burning out in other areas. Containment appeared not far off.

On Tuesday evening, strong down-slope winds of up to 20 mph caused spotting outside containment lines and the fire began to make significant runs down and across Bureau of Land Management drainages, with sustained runs Figure 53. Crown fire in unthinned pine forest; Squires Peak Fire, Oregon.

130 in the crowns of the trees. More spot fires spread fire into multiple drainages, and the fire moved off of Squires Peak into several populated drainages. The fire behavior pattern became one of backing fires under thinned timber stands and moving down slope without the effect of wind, but making strong runs in unthinned timber stands (Figures 53 and 54) and uphill on south slopes, with torching, crowning, Sustained crown fires swept whole and multiple spot fires (Figures slopes in unthinned timber stands. 55). Numerous homes and Bureau of Land Management outbuildings in the rural interface Figure 54. Stand in Figure 10 after Squires Peak Fire. were threatened, and many families evacuated. Most families were well prepared, thanks to their understanding of the issues identified in the Applegate Fire Plan.

On Wednesday, erratic winds continued to fan the fire across containment lines and to drive spot fires into new terrain. On Thursday, ODF fire managers drew “a line in the sand” at Sterling Creek Road. Taking advantage of the terrain, an area where fuels had been treated, and more favorable winds, the fire Bureau of Land Management was contained without crossing Figure 55. Home with defensible space survived the Squire Peaks Fire. the road.

131 The Squires Peak Fire was contained at 3,000 acres with no homes lost and nobody seriously injured. Coop- eration between the responsible agencies and open dia- logue with the local residents contributed materially to a successful suppression effort.

On August 22, 2002, following another siege of lightning fires in southwest Oregon, and during the height of the massive Biscuit Fire some thirty miles to the west, President George W. Bush stood at a spot inside the Squires Peak Fire where the fire had burned intensely through a heavy stand of timber scheduled to be logged, followed by slash treatment and prescribed burning. Against a background of blackened trees, the President called for changes in federal policy and regulations that would make it easier for the FS and BLM to conduct thinning, slash treatment, and prescribed burns that would reduce fire hazard and contribute to improved forest health. He also called on Congress to provide funding to implement the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, which could yield up to a billion board feet of lumber and 100,000 jobs while reducing fire hazard and improving forest health.

The Squires Peak Fire certainly was not large, especially in a year with two fires approaching half a million acres, but it may have a significant impact as the icon for expanded efforts to thin our forests and reduce fire hazards.

The Indian Fire, Prescott, Arizona Prescott, Arizona is a rapidly growing community situated in the pine forested mountains of central Arizona, adjacent to the Prescott National Forest. Nearly 50,000 people live in the Prescott metropolitan area and major growth has been the hallmark of the last decade, with many of the new arrivals being retirees intent on escaping the stress of large cities or the brutal winters of the Great Lakes region. At an elevation of 5,350 feet, Prescott offers attractive scenery, cool summers, and mild winters to its residents. It also offers the opportunity for high intensity, large, damaging wildfires (Figure 56).

At lower elevations of the Prescott Basin the vegetation consists of mixed brush species such as manzanita, mountain mahogany, scrub oak and cliff rose, Figure 56. Wildland/urban interface in Prescott, Arizona.

132 with scattered pinyon pine and juniper trees. As elevation increases, so does the density of Ponderosa Pine. In many parts of the metropolitan area, the brush is high, thick, and decadent. Over the last 50 years, the Ponde- rosa Pine forest has changed significantly in character, primarily as a result of logging and fire exclusion. Much of the existing forest, especially on the state and private lands, but also on the national forest, is overstocked with heavy undergrowth of brush fuels. During the last few years, Figure 57. Prescribed fire in Ponderosa Pine, Arizona. a lingering drought in the South- west U.S. has resulted in high mortality of all forest plant species. The brush species have reacted to water stress by increasing their dead/live fuel ratios, some of which were already high due to the advanced age of the brush fields. In many parts of Prescott, the scenery looks remarkably similar to Southern California fuel types. The Ponderosa Pine forest has suffered increased epidemics of disease and insects, and many of the trees are dead or dying. Aerial fuels are abundant, allowing surface fires plenty of oppor- Figure 58. Fuel wood cut and stacked; slash lopped, ready for tunity to climb into the crowns of broadcast burning.

133 the pine trees. Without normal summer “monsoon” rainstorms, the hot, dry desert climate provides the perfect weather conditions for high intensity wildfires. Normal summer monsoons have occurred only once in the last six years.

Homes are being built at an increasing pace, with subdivisions creeping up the mountains on the outskirts of town. Early subdivisions were built without fire protection water systems and with narrow, winding roads, frequently with only one way in and out. No statewide fire defense regulations are in place. Many people, alarmed how many trees are already dead, are Prescott, AZ is a community-at-risk. reluctant to support additional thinning. There are no legal requirements or financial incentives to establish defensible space around homes. When you add increasing numbers of homes to this volatile wildland setting, you have successfully created the recipe for a large, damaging wildfire to sweep through the wildland/urban interface with great risks to people and their homes.

Pre-suppression Activities The primary public land management agencies in the Prescott metropolitan area are the U.S.D.A. Forest Service (FS), Prescott National Forest and the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD). Other than Arizona Public Services (APS), an electric utility, there are few major landowners in the private sector, so the private lands tend to be in small ownerships, usually less than an acre in size.

The Prescott National Forest (PNF) has an active fuel management program, with additional funding from the National Fire Plan providing increased opportunities for hazard reduction projects of cost-effective scale. The forest staff recognizes the necessity of protecting the adjacent private lands from wildfires originating on the forest, as well as the need to protect forest resources from the increased fire risks posed by urbanization of the neighboring wildlands. Considerable effort has been directed at fuel management projects on the windward edge of the forest southwest of town (Figure 59).

The State lands tend to be in scattered, one section (640 acres) blocks, although there are some patches of contiguous blocks in the Prescott area that provide opportunity for macro-land management projects. The ASLD Fire Management Division has less than thirty full time permanent employees for the whole state, so it must leverage its meager resources by entering into cooperative arrangements with private landowners and other public agencies in order to accomplish integrated fuel hazard reduction in strategic blocks.

134 Arizona Public Services (APS) is fully cognizant of both the risk of wildfire originating from its electrical utility operations and the risk of wildfire to its electric utility infrastructure. For example, APS is currently building the world’s largest solar power plant (450KW) on a 50- acre site near the Prescott airport. Not wanting to find out what effect the smoke and soot from a major forest fire could do to this Key players: facility, the utility has become a major player in hazard reduction Arizona State Lands Dept. efforts in the Prescott area. Figure 59. Thinning with fuel wood removal; slash piled for burning. Prescott National Forest Prescott Fire Department Formed to address the threat of large, damaging wildfires in the wildland-urban interface, Central Yavapai Fire District the Prescott Area Wildland/Urban Interface Commission (PAWUIC) consists of civic leaders Arizona Public Services and interested citizens with advisors from the land management and fire protection agencies. Born a dozen years ago under the leadership of the Prescott City Manager, the chairman of the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors and the supervisor of the Prescott N.F., the PAWUIC, with initial funding from APS, has been successfully pursuing various grant funds for hazard reduction projects in the Prescott interface.

In addition to creation of an interagency operating and evacuation plan for wildfires, one tangible example of their efforts is the creation of two brush fire crews operated jointly by the Prescott Fire Department (PFD) and the Central Yavapai Fire District (CYFD). These fully- trained fire crews are equipped with trucks, chippers, and tools, and perform hazard reduction work on private lands in targeted high hazard areas of the wildland/urban interface. In one target subdivision in a high hazard area, more than half of all the lots have already been treated. While local politics still make stiff fire regulations unpopular, the commission has greatly increased public awareness of the defensible space concept.

135 ASLD, using funding from NFP grants and the Prescott brush crew, has been able to pretreat blocks of state lands within the metropolitan area in preparation for prescribed burns aimed at reducing fuel volumes and lowering age class in the brush species. This type of project has the potential to decrease fire hazard, improve scenic value, and improve forage value for wildlife, an important part of the living in the woods experience.

The Prescott National Forest conducts several prescribed burn operations each year, as well as brush crushing and tree thinning operations, both for fire hazard reduction and insect control purposes.

Fire Suppression Organization The primary providers of fire protection services in the Prescott Basin are the Prescott Fire Department (PFD), the Central Yavapai Fire District (CYFD), and the Prescott National Forest Defensible space is being created with (PNF). National Fire Plan grant funds. The Prescott Fire Department has five stations and operates two wildland engines in addition to its regular structure engines. PFD has a Wildland/Urban Interface Hazard Fuels Reduction Team, operates an interagency central dispatch, and has an automatic aid agreement with the CYFD.

The Central Yavapai Fire District has four stations housing 3 engines, one quint, 2 water tenders, and one patrol rig and is a combination paid/volunteer department serving the area outside the City of Prescott.

The Prescott National Forest currently staffs six engines, one helicopter (Type 3) with fly crew, six lookouts, and fields 10 fire prevention technicians. It also has available one hotshot crew and one heavy air tanker, both considered national resources and subject to frequent off- forest dispatches. Initial attack capability during the current drought has been increased by the addition of one medium air tanker.

The Forest Service engines are stationed in the PFD and CYFD stations during the wildland fire season and the personnel from all three agencies, train, work and respond together, using the “closest resource” dispatch philosophy. Aircraft respond on initial attack dispatches in the wildland/urban interface during high fire danger periods.

136 The ASLD Fire Management Division provides coordination of interagency response to multi-jurisdictional wildfires and pays for local government fire apparatus responding to wildfires outside their own jurisdiction.

The Indian Fire It was a warm, sunny, day with a normal southwest breeze in Prescott on Wednesday, May 15, 2002. At about 1455 hours personnel at both Prescott Fire Stations 71 and 72 observed a building column of smoke to the south of town. Soon 9-1-1 calls confirmed a wildfire on Indian Creek Road near the campground. Units from the PFD, CYFD, and PNF responded simultaneously. Upon arrival of Delayed report gives fire a head start. the first units at the scene, seven minutes later, the fire was already 10-15 acres burning intensely and crowning in pine timber. It appears the fire had been burning for some time before being noticed.

The fire spread quickly toward Highway 89 and was already 100 acres with long range spotting occurring within the first 30 minutes. Utilizing the strategy identified in the local pre-plan, a command post was established at the Indian Creek Campground and arriving chief officers immediately given division assignments, including the formation of a Structure Protection Group, as the fire was headed directly for the Ponderosa Park subdivision. Residents of the area crowded the roadways trying to reach their homes. Significant resources were ordered for structure protection assignments early on.

As the fire increased in size and intensity, it was apparent that evacuation of the Ponderosa Park and Timberridge subdivisions, if not a much larger area, would be necessary. The Yavapai

137 County Office of Emergency Man- agement (YCOEM) began mobilizing additional resources according to the interagency operating plan. Before nightfall, some 3,000 people would be evacuated from their homes and report to evacuation centers established by the Red Cross and other relief agencies.

3,000 people evacuated. By 1700 hours, the fire had crossed Highway 89 near the summit, destroying a historic forest service station on the way, and was more than 500 acres and running hard toward town. A total of six air tankers and one heavy-lift helicopter were now operating on the fire. Within one half hour of the opening of the Prescott Emergency Operations Center (EOC), three subdivisions were being evacuated and buses had been ordered to evacuate the campers from Chapel Rock Camp. The fire had reached 900 acres (Figure 60).

At this time it was apparent that a stand would have to be made at the head of the fire to keep it from burning directly into the City. Tim- ing and circumstances dictated that the stand would be made at the edge Figure 60. The Indian Fire headed for the City of Prescott. of the Cathedral Pines subdivision, directly bordering the Prescott NF. Structure protection forces were put in to place, residents were evacuated, residences were triaged, and wildland crews began a burnout around the structures at the edge of the subdivision in an area that had

138 previously been mechanically thinned and burned by the Forest Service in anticipation of just such a fire event.

As the head of the fire entered the fuel treatment area, fire intensity diminished so that air drops became effective, and the wind died down enough that the firing operation was manageable. Fire spread from first house to There was still plenty of excite- three others. ment, as a spot fire hidden by the heavy smoke ran through a brush patch below a house, igniting it. An adjacent house ignited from Figure 61. High intensity wildfire; salvage logged and slash chipped radiant heat from the first structure, in foreground. and two more houses up the hill had spot fires start on the roofs before suppression forces could knock the heat out of the head.

By nightfall, the combination of aggressive fire fighting, close air support, reduced wind, cooler temperatures, and higher humidity gave firefighters the upper hand. The fire was contained the next day at 1,360 acres, with 4 structures lost and one heavily damaged. Fifteen houses that were within the perimeter of the fire had been saved.

Nearly 80% of the area burned by the Indian Fire suffered a high intensity burn; with nearly 100% kill of the second growth Ponderosa Pine forest. Arson is suspected as the fire cause and a reward has been offered for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the responsible party (Figure 61).

139 While the Indian Fire was certainly one of the most serious fires in recent history in the Prescott area, it had the potential to be a disaster of major proportions. More than 2,000 homes were in the immediate path of the fire, nestled in woods made decadent by insects and disease and made tinder dry by years of drought. Preplanning, hazard reduction, interagency cooperation, effective suppression actions, and a little luck kept the Indian Fire from becoming a conflagration.

The Rodeo-Chediski Fire, Arizona The Mogollon Rim cleaves the mountains of eastern Arizona as dramatically as the Great Wall once isolated China. The vertical rock face of the rim, reaching more than 1,000 vertical feet, makes travel difficult at best. From a distance, the vast expanse of bare rock wall would appear to be a formidable firebreak, but it proved no great obstacle for the Rodeo-Chediski Fire, the largest wildfire in Arizona history.

North of the rim the country tilts gently toward the north, falling from the cool pine forests of the Pinetop-Lakeside resort communities at 7,000 feet to the high desert scrub on the Colo- rado Plateau south of the Colo- rado River and the Interstate 40 corridor between Winslow and Holbrook, around 5,000 feet in elevation (Figure 62). The transition from desert to conifer forest is dramatic as you head south from Holbrook and climb toward the luxuriant green forests along the rim (Figure 63). Along the north side of the rim are nestled a dozen resort and summer home Figure 62. Unthinned Ponderosa Pine forest near Rodeo, Arizona. communities, where residents and visitors alike are somewhat protected from the oppressive heat of the desert summers.

140 South of the rim, the Fort Apache and San Carlos Indian Reservations cover 2.6 million acres of high desert and forest punctuated by scattered rugged mountains and deep river canyons. Two major watersheds, the White River and the Black River, flow out of the reservations, join to form the Salt River and flow down toward the Valley of the Sun and the Phoenix metropolitan area. Elevations range from the 11, 560 foot Mount Baldy in the White Mountains on the east side down to the 3,000 foot level on the west and south ends of the reservations. Vegeta- tion varies from high desert brush and scrub through dense Ponderosa Pine forest to mixed conifer forest on the shoulders of the high peaks. The forest Live fuel moistures were at record low supports two sawmills that are a levels. significant source of income for the White Mountain Apache tribe. Several small towns are scattered across the reservations, but much of the country is open and undeveloped wildland. Only two major highways cross the reservations, and much of the land area is inaccessible beyond a network of gravel and dirt Figure 63. The fire is torching in pines. logging roads.

The area is dry, with much of the precipitation from sporadic scattered thunderstorms that occur frequently during the summer “monsoon” rain period. Winter snows at the higher elevations bank much of the moisture required to support the pine forest and keep the small streams trickling down through the desert towards the cities. For six of the last seven years, the area has experienced a severe drought. At the lower elevations, much of the pinyon pine in the pinyon- juniper cover type of the desert highlands has died. In the pine forests, insect and disease epidemics have killed 20-30% of the Ponderosa Pine. The forests in the spring of 2002 looked gray-brown and tired instead of lush green. Live fuel moisture readings in the brush and timber were at record low levels.

141 Wildland Fire Protection Fire protection for the Fort Apache Indian Reservation is provided by the USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Fort Apache Agency. To cover the 400 or so fires each year on the 1.7 million acres in its jurisdiction, the agency fields a suppression force including ten engines (Type 3), two bulldozers, one helicopter (Type 3), and five lookouts. Several well-trained and experienced Southwest Fire Fighter (SWFF) crews are also based on the reservation. Unfortu- nately, under the BIA’s Fire Management Program Analysis (FMPA) processes, the Fort Apache Agency has been targeted for an 18% budget cut in the 2003 federal fiscal year, even as the drought continues. Fort Apache Agency: At the north edge of the reservations, on top of the Mogollon Rim, wildland fire protection 1.7 million acres is provided by the USDA Forest Service, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. A small propor- 400 fires per year tion of the fire also burned on the Tonto National Forest. Fire management operations are under 10 fire engines the Southwest Area Coordinating Group via the Southwest Coordination Center (SWCC) in 2 bulldozers Albuquerque, New Mexico. This group coordinates fire response for the federal agencies in 1 helicopter Arizona, New Mexico, and west Texas. The Apache-Sitgreaves forest has six fire engines 5 lookouts spread across the top of the Mogollon Rim. The dozen or so small communities scattered along the top of the Mogollon Rim are protected by individual fire protection districts. These districts are mostly all volunteer, with only a few paid personnel. While most have wildland engines, the training and experience levels vary greatly, and wildfire capabilities suffer in the summer as many volunteer firefighters take seasonal positions with the federal agencies.

The Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), Fire Management Division is responsible for fire protection on the blocks of state land in the area, and coordinates the response of local fire agencies to wildland fires throughout the state. ASLD has limited staff and only a few engines.

Fuel Management Projects The federal land management agencies (FS, BIA, and BLM) and the ASLD Fire Manage- ment Division have long recognized that a major fire on the reservations, driven by prevailing southwest winds, could crest the Mogollon Rim and threaten any of the small towns on top. To attempt to cope with this threat, they have for many years engaged in a series of fuel reduction and fuel break projects on top of the rim. These projects are intended to reduce the intensity of wildfires approaching the developed areas and provide defensible space in which suppression

142 actions can be safely undertaken. Unfortunately, these projects have not been coordinated between the federal, state, and local agencies to tie together into an interconnected strategic barrier that ignores jurisdictional boundaries the way wildfires do.

Mechanical clearing and prescribed fires are used frequently to reduce fuel accumulations, especially slash following logging operations. While increased funding for several of the agencies through the National Fire Plan (NFP) has made it possible to undertake more and larger projects in the last few years, the area of concern and the amount of work needed to reverse 50 years of fire exclusion is immense. 100-hour fuel moisture The Fire Story was 2 percent The fire situation at the Fort Apache Agency and on the neighboring Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest could not have been much worse in June of 2002. Another dry winter, followed by a warm, dry spring had reduced fuel moisture levels in both brush and timber fuel types to record lows (100 hour fuels = 2%). The second week in June was so dry that several area weather stations were recording new record low relative humidity readings.

On the afternoon on June 18, 2002 a new fire was reported near the town of Cibeque in the northwest corner of the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. Set by an arsonist at the bottom of a slope in flashy fuels, the Rodeo fire was already 15 acres and spreading rapidly uphill on the arrival of the first air tanker only 13 minutes after the first report of the fire. Despite a heavy commitment of suppression resources, the fire raged unchecked. On June 19th, the fire went from about 1,000 acres to 50,000 + acres in less than nine hours (Figures 64 and 65).

143 By the morning of June 20th, the Rodeo fire was more than 55,000 acres, and equipment and personnel from outside the area were reporting to staging in large numbers. Then “the other shoe dropped”. At about 0700 hours a lost hiker set a signal fire in hopes of attracting rescuers. It worked. An immediate heavy response of resources from the staging area was diverted to the new fire, which was nearly contained by the initial attack crews at about 46 acres. But the daytime southwest winds picked up, driving the fire upslope into the timber on a sustained run that burned 10,000 acres in the first day.

Figure 64. The Chedisk-Rodeo Fire burned over 460 thousand acres.

144 The Rodeo-Chediski Fire threatened half a dozen communities simultaneously!

These two major fires continued to grow for the next several days. They were driven by moderate SW winds (15-30 mph) in the initial stages. When the wind wasn’t blow- ing, the fires burned with such intensity in the heavy, dry fuels that they become plume dominated. In the late afternoon, when the icecaps on top of the convection columns collapsed, the fires spread rapidly in all Figure 65. The Rodeo-Chediski Fire threatened directions, defying the containment strate- half a dozen communities simultaneously! gies each day.

On June 23rd, the two fires merged into one giant conflagration that burned over 100,000 acres in that single day, probably a record sustained run for a wildland fire. On most days, the only places that crown fires were not sustained were in the small patches of forest where hazard reduction projects had been completed within the last 5-7 years.

145 The conflagration continued its march northward, and barely hesitated at the formidable Mogollon Rim, spotting across a wide front into the pine forest outside the rim communities. The strategic fire planning for the Mogollon Rim had predicted a wildfire impacting a town on the rim, but not six communities at once. In the rim communities, hit and run aggressive fire fighting became the norm as the fire swirled, danced, skipped, and spotted across the forest, between houses and over roads. Here, the fuel loading was extremely heavy, as few residents had bought in to the concept of defensible space or thinning the forest in their yards. The largest of the rim communities, the town of Show Low (pop. 7,700, plus 5,000+ tourists in summer) was being threatened by a crown fire more than two miles wide advancing at a sustained rate of spread of 2-3 miles per hour. Thou- sands of residents fled to the north (Figure 66). Thousands of residents evacuated. A change in wind direction saved Show Low itself, and the weather began to moderate, with less wind and higher humidity giving firefighters a fighting chance. Even with a massive response of fire suppression resources from all over the West, parts of the Rodeo- Chedeski Fire were not contained until they spread out into the light fuels of the high desert.

The Rodeo-Chedeski Fire became one for the record books, burning 468,863 acres, and 446 structures (including 200+ homes) in seven towns. Nearly 30,000 people were evacuated, some for more than a week. The fire consumed nearly 400 million board feet of timber on just the Fort Apache Reservation, probably another 250+ million on the national forests. Salvage logging of the burned area will keep the two White Mountain Apache Tribe sawmills busy for a couple of Figure 66. Structure survived despite intense burn.

146 years, but after that many jobs and much income will be lost for a long time.

The fire cost at least $60 million to control, $30 million in burned area rehabilitation efforts, and caused nearly a billion dollars in direct damages, including $42 million in structure (and property tax revenue) losses. The tributaries of the Salt River, an important part of the water supply for the 2.8 million people of the Phoe- nix metropolitan area, will remain at risk from the fire- flood cycle for several years.

The forests of the White Mountains will eventually recover, most of the burned homes will be rebuilt, the streams will run clear again, and eventually things will return to “normal”. But eventually is a long time if you’ve sunk your life savings into a retirement home in the forest or your job depends on logging, recreation, or tourism (Figure 67). Figure 67. Several of these cabins were destroyed by the fire; rebuilding started immediately.

147 148 Wildland Fire Activities Numbers of Fires and Acres Burned by Agency for the 2002 Fire Season

149 Western United States

Wildland Fire Activity Summary Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL

No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires Burned Burned Burned Burned

State Forestry Agencies 25,097 2,198,083 1,867 75,314 1 1 26,965 2,273,398

Federal Land Management Agencies Forest Service 7,824 2,171,407 3,106 254,384 269 39,974 11,199 2,465,765 Bureau of Land Management 2,403 1,131,787 319 98,772 26 9,157 2,748 1,239,716 National Park Service 342 169,356 102 22,004 103 7,725 547 199,085 Fish and Wildlife Service 226 355,836 348 77,739 574 433,575 Bureau of Indian Affairs 3,593 415,527 88 50,804 3,681 466,331 TOTAL 14,388 4,243,913 3,963 503,703 398 56,856 18,749 4,804,472

Other Fire Agencies 3,031 252,121 14 3,727 2,957 219,357

TOTAL 42,516 6,694,117 5,844 582,744 399 56,857 48,759 7,333,718

Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers and the data reporting systems of the various states.

150 Alaska

Wildland Fire Activity Summary Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL

No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires Burned Burned Burned Burned

State Forestry Agency* 399 802,515 399 802,515

Federal Land Management Agencies Forest Service 21 17 21 17 Alaska Fire Service(BLM)** 37 702,783 37 702,783 National Park Service** 10 133,810 10 133,810 Fish and Wildlife Service** 32 341,451 1 1,085 33 342,536 Bureau of Indian Affairs** 1 4 1 4 TOTAL 101 1,178,065 1 1,085 102 1,179,150

Other Fire Agencies 53 118,443 53 118,443

TOTAL 553 2,099,023 1 1,085 554 2,100,108

Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers. * State provided statistics were used in the caculations. **The Alaska Fire Service provides wildland fire protection for the US Department of Interior agencies in Alaska.

151 Arizona

Wildland Fire Activity Summary Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL

No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires Burned Burned Burned Burned

State Forestry Agency* 530 46,645 530 46,645

Federal Land Management Agencies Forest Service 1,197 330,056 1,164 34,222 2,361 364,278 Bureau of Land Management 153 8,475 14 15,706 167 24,181 National Park Service 37 1,887 4 3,997 1 12 42 5,896 Fish and Wildlife Service 23 6,785 1 145 24 6,930 Bureau of Indian Affairs 1,038 297,321 18 41,506 1,056 338,827 TOTAL 2,448 644,524 1,201 95,576 1 12 3,650 740,112

Other Fire Agencies 52 48 52 48

TOTAL 3,030 691,217 1,201 95,576 1 12 4,232 786,805

Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers. * State provided statistics were used in the caculations.

152 California

Wildland Fire Activity Summary Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL

No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires Burned Burned Burned Burned

State Forestry Agency* 5,759 112,810 5,759 112,810

Federal Land Management Agencies Forest Service 1,610 365,945 565 54,922 195 1 2,370 420,868 Bureau of Land Management 118 32,767 19 1,546 137 34,313 National Park Service 55 923 47 6,938 86 4,137 188 11,998 Fish and Wildlife Service 26 956 23 24,684 49 25,640 Bureau of Indian Affairs 318 11,014 13 272 331 11,286 TOTAL 2,127 411,605 667 88,362 281 4,138 3,075 504,105

Other Fire Agencies

TOTAL 7,886 524,415 667 88,362 281 4,138 8,834 616,915

Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers. * State provided statistics were used in the caculations.

153 Colorado

Wildland Fire Activity Summary Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL

No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires Burned Burned Burned Burned

State Forestry Agency* 3,409 244,252 17 467 1 1 3,427 244,720

Federal Land Management Agencies Forest Service 517 299,927 26 5,718 3 22,592 546 328,237 Bureau of Land Management 419 27,909 13 2,421 14 619 446 30,949 National Park Service 34 7,707 5 191 39 7,898 Fish and Wildlife Service 3 18 1 6 4 24 Bureau of Indian Affairs 126 2,186 3 16 129 2,202 TOTAL 1,099 337,747 48 8,352 17 23,211 1,164 369,310

Other Fire Agencies 75 13,817 8 1,920 83 15,737

TOTAL 4,583 595,816 73 10,739 18 23,212 4,674 629,767

Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the RMACC 2002 Annual Report. * State provided statistics were used in the caculations.

154 Guam

Wildland Fire Activity Summary Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL

No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires Burned Burned Burned Burned

Forestry Agency 491 2,434 491 2,434

Federal Land Management Agencies Forest Service Bureau of Land Management National Park Service Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Indian Affairs TOTAL

Other Fire Agencies

TOTAL 491 2,434 491 2,434

Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers. * State provided statistics were used in the caculations.

155 Hawaii

Wildland Fire Activity Summary Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL

No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires Burned Burned Burned Burned

State Forestry Agency* 188 2,377 188 2,377

Federal Land Management Agencies Forest Service Bureau of Land Management National Park Service 1 3,660 1 3,660 Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Indian Affairs TOTAL 1 3,660 1 3,660

Other Fire Agencies

TOTAL 189 6,037 189 6,037

Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers. * State provided statistics were used in the caculations.

156 Idaho

Wildland Fire Activity Summary Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL

No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires Burned Burned Burned Burned

State Forestry Agency* 386 7,972 46 3,901 432 11,873

Federal Land Management Agencies Forest Service 930 17,077 374 28,871 35 7,688 1,339 53,636 Bureau of Land Management 205 43,570 14 12,817 219 56,387 National Park Service 1 1 1 1 Fish and Wildlife Service 1 755 2 30 3 785 Bureau of Indian Affairs 8 10 8 10 TOTAL 1,145 61,413 390 41,718 35 7,688 1,570 110,819

Other Fire Agencies 27 20,736 27 20,736

TOTAL 1,558 90,121 436 45,619 35 7,688 2,029 143,428

Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers. * State provided statistics were used in the caculations.

157 Kansas

Wildland Fire Activity Summary Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL

No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires Burned Burned Burned Burned

State Forestry Agency* 6,024 93,017 6,024 93,017

Federal Land Management Agencies Forest Service 10 1,422 10 1,422 Bureau of Land Management National Park Service Fish and Wildlife Service 8 304 45 4,865 53 5,169 Bureau of Indian Affairs 4 106 5 500 9 606 TOTAL 22 1,832 50 5,365 72 7,197

Other Fire Agencies

TOTAL 6,046 94,849 50 5,365 6,096 100,214

Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers. * State provided statistics were used in the caculations. Special Note:This is for approximately the first nine months of 2002 only.

158 Montana

Wildland Fire Activity Summary Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL

No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires Burned Burned Burned Burned

State Forestry Agency* 471 28,811 8 254 479 29,065

Federal Land Management Agencies Forest Service 656 77,859 336 15,407 18 1,156 1,010 94,422 Bureau of Land Management 61 7,085 15 5,920 76 13,005 National Park Service 10 1 1 65 8 34 19 100 Fish and Wildlife Service 15 807 15 807 Bureau of Indian Affairs 350 8,420 9 725 359 9,145 TOTAL 1,092 94,172 361 22,117 26 1,190 1,479 117,479

Other Fire Agencies* 2,520 10,288 4 1,693 2,524 11,981

TOTAL 4,083 133,271 373 24,064 26 1,190 4,482 158,525

Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers. * State provided statistics were used in the caculations.

159 Nebraska

Wildland Fire Activity Summary Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL

No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires Burned Burned Burned Burned

State Forestry Agency* 1,835 90,562 1,835 90,562

Federal Land Management Agencies Forest Service 11 136 11 136 Bureau of Land Management National Park Service 4 9 1 618 5 627 Fish and Wildlife Service 30 282 50 7,816 80 8,098 Bureau of Indian Affairs TOTAL 45 427 51 8,434 96 8,861

Other Fire Agencies

TOTAL 1,880 90,989 51 8,434 1,931 99,423

Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers. * State provided statistics were used in the caculations.

160 Nevada

Wildland Fire Activity Summary Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL

No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires Burned Burned Burned Burned

State Forestry Agency* 269 2,833 269 2,833

Federal Land Management Agencies Forest Service 152 42,066 5 172 157 42,238 Bureau of Land Management 499 34,149 49 14,567 12 8,528 560 57,244 National Park Service 12 6 8 814 20 820 Fish and Wildlife Service 9 456 2 480 11 936 Bureau of Indian Affairs 10 316 10 316 TOTAL 682 76,993 64 16,033 12 8,528 758 101,554

Other Fire Agencies 14 818 14 818

TOTAL 965 80,644 64 16,033 12 8,528 1,041 105,205

Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers. * State provided statistics were used in the caculations.

161 New Mexico

Wildland Fire Activity Summary Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL

No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires Burned Burned Burned Burned

State Forestry Agency* 794 226,492 794 226,492

Federal Land Management Agencies Forest Service 558 90,978 48 15,797 8 5,560 614 112,335 Bureau of Land Management 47 13,819 9 1,962 56 15,781 National Park Service 8 11,012 1 380 9 11,392 Fish and Wildlife Service 8 85 9 4,577 17 4,662 Bureau of Indian Affairs 384 13,784 4 90 388 13,874 TOTAL 1,005 129,678 70 22,426 9 5,940 1,084 158,044

Other Fire Agencies

TOTAL 1,799 356,170 70 22,426 9 5,940 1,878 384,536

Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers. * State provided statistics were used in the caculations.

162 North Dakota

Wildland Fire Activity Summary Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL

No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires Burned Burned Burned Burned

State Forestry Agency* 325 29,565 13 2,434 338 31,999

Federal Land Management Agencies Forest Service 4 761 9 1,769 13 2,530 Bureau of Land Management National Park Service 1 1 10 2,417 11 2,418 Fish and Wildlife Service 20 1,418 134 19,341 154 20,759 Bureau of Indian Affairs 658 27,067 658 27,067 TOTAL 683 29,247 153 23,527 836 52,774

Other Fire Agencies 2 114 2 114

TOTAL 1,008 58,812 168 26,075 1,176 84,887

Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers. * State provided statistics were used in the caculations.

163 Oregon

Wildland Fire Activity Summary Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL

No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires Burned Burned Burned Burned

State Forestry Agency* 1,175 99,047 1,754 67,220 2,929 166,267

Federal Land Management Agencies Forest Service 1,127 752,782 324 50,891 2 1 1,453 803,674 Bureau of Land Management 319 153,878 156 37,097 475 190,975 National Park Service 20 14 7 62 27 76 Fish and Wildlife Service 15 1,839 9 6,193 24 8,032 Bureau of Indian Affairs 81 2,829 17 4,316 98 7,145 TOTAL 1,562 911,342 513 98,559 2 1 2,077 1,009,902

Other Fire Agencies

TOTAL 2,737 1,010,389 2,267 165,779 2 1 5,006 1,176,169

Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers. * State provided statistics were used in the caculations.

164 South Dakota

Wildland Fire Activity Summary Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL

No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires Burned Burned Burned Burned

State Forestry Agency* 725 166,928 1 150 726 167,078

Federal Land Management Agencies Forest Service 170 1,822 10 2,977 180 4,799 Bureau of Land Management National Park Service 14 1,072 3 1,469 17 2,541 Fish and Wildlife Service 6 33 42 5,651 48 5,684 Bureau of Indian Affairs 327 15,788 327 15,788 TOTAL 517 18,715 55 10,097 572 28,812

Other Fire Agencies 107 12,862 107 12,862

TOTAL 1,349 198,505 56 10,247 1,405 208,752

Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers. * State provided statistics were used in the caculations.

165 Utah

Wildland Fire Activity Summary Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL

No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires Burned Burned Burned Burned

State Forestry Agency 613 68,534 21 595 634 69,129

Federal Land Management Agencies Forest Service 342 101,135 23 27,501 2 345 367 128,981 Bureau of Land Management 369 70,012 18 5,055 387 75,067 National Park Service 29 35 7 1,209 36 1,244 Fish and Wildlife Service 5 1 425 6 425 Bureau of Indian Affairs 67 5,326 1 7 68 5,333 TOTAL 812 176,508 50 34,197 2 345 864 211,050

Other Fire Agencies 6 127 6 127

TOTAL 1,431 245,169 71 34,792 2 345 1,504 280,306

Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers. * State provided statistics were used in the caculations.

166 Washington

Wildland Fire Activity Summary Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL

No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires Burned Burned Burned Burned

State Forestry Agency* 889 10,063 6 292 895 10,355

Federal Land Management Agencies Forest Service 337 58,220 198 10,858 4 11 539 69,089 Bureau of Land Management 21 5,123 21 5,123 National Park Service 36 69 3 192 39 261 Fish and Wildlife Service 24 627 28 2,441 52 3,068 Bureau of Indian Affairs 195 15,537 18 3,372 213 18,909 TOTAL 613 79,576 247 16,863 4 11 864 96,450

Other Fire Agencies 1 2,000 1 2,000

TOTAL 1,503 91,639 253 17,155 4 11 1,760 108,805

Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers. * State provided statistics were used in the caculations.

167 Wyoming

Wildland Fire Activity Summary Wildland Fires Prescribed Fires Wildland Fire Use TOTAL

No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires No. Fires Burned Burned Burned Burned

State Forestry Agency* 815 163,226 1 1 816 163,227

Federal Land Management Agencies Forest Service 182 31,204 24 5,279 2 2,620 208 39,103 Bureau of Land Management 155 32,217 12 1,681 10 167 33,908 National Park Service 70 9,149 6 4,032 7 3,162 83 16,343 Fish and Wildlife Service 1 20 1 20 Bureau of Indian Affairs 26 15,819 26 15,819 TOTAL 434 88,409 42 10,992 9 5,792 485 105,193

Other Fire Agencies 88 36,491 88 36,491

TOTAL 1,337 288,126 43 10,993 9 5,792 1,389 304,911

Data Source : The data for these charts was taken from the Detailed Situation Reports of the various Geographic Area Coordination Centers. * State provided statistics were used in the caculations.

168 State Fire Statistics Numbers of Fires and Acres Burned by Cause and Size Class 1998 through 2002

Number of Fires Number of Acres Burned

30,000 26,439 3,000,000 25,324 25,494 25,097 2,612,619 19,180 23,301 20,390 25,000 19,577 20,936 2,500,000 2,213,124 2,198,083

20,000 16,894 2,000,000 1,430,853 1,309,405 15,000 1,500,000 1,350,726 10,000 1,000,000 No. of Fires 648,144 644,237 552,134 564,356 5,000 500,000 No. of Acres Burned 0 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Years 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Years

169 Western State Composite Statistics

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 5-year Average No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned 19,180 564,356 23,301 1,309,405 25,494 2,213,124 20,390 648,144 25,097 2,198,083 22,692 1,386,622

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Lightning 2,663 264,614 14 2,396 370,301 10 4,051 1,106,661 16 3,270 293,093 16 3,270 1,300,528 13 3,130 667,039 14 Camper 623 2,411 3 884 6,912 4 851 8,917 3 857 7,345 4 731 15,177 3 789 8,152 3 Smoker 757 6,191 4 950 23,121 4 1,056 25,202 4 704 4,364 3 1,294 9,318 5 952 13,639 4 Debris Burning 4,401 47,862 23 5,347 146,606 23 5,168 149,776 20 3,159 23,982 15 4,658 97,948 19 4,547 93,235 20 Arson 2,014 39,577 11 1,304 81,293 6 2,089 121,566 8 1,987 26,533 10 1,971 115,612 8 1,873 76,916 8 Equipment 2,935 64,061 15 3,724 186,500 16 3,375 234,618 13 3,539 148,604 17 3,012 183,283 12 3,317 163,413 15 Railroads 431 6,050 2 653 133,387 3 695 78,188 3 204 3,819 1 335 2,814 1 464 44,852 2 Children 601 7,090 3 512 2,579 2 546 1,908 2 552 1,539 3 478 6,875 2 538 3,998 2 Miscellaneous 4,755 139,526 25 7,501 359,185 32 7,663 488,632 30 6,118 141,589 30 9,348 468,899 37 7,077 319,566 31

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. Acres % % % % % No. Fires % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Burned Class A 9,864 14,430 51 12,601 1,155 54 11,246 7,525 44 11,975 3,975 59 13,341 5,554 53 11,805 6,528 52 Class B 6,792 9,630 35 7,139 13,182 31 9,529 17,184 37 6,494 11,128 32 7,653 22,469 30 7,521 14,719 33 Class C 1,951 42,003 10 2,730 49,291 12 3,588 73,534 14 1,485 40,926 7 2,323 69,105 9 2,415 54,972 11 Class D 308 38,922 2 436 45,400 2 544 77,172 2 228 32,711 1 377 55,582 2 379 49,957 2 Class E 162 86,407 1 235 95,617 1 332 154,116 1 118 54,736 1 180 88,650 1 205 95,905 1 Class F 82 154,229 0 108 220,812 0 161 370,400 1 64 121,359 0 121 308,926 0 107 235,145 0 Class G 21 227,118 0 52 883,948 0 94 1,515,724 0 26 384,184 0 91 1,699,639 0 57 942,123 0

170 Alaska

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 5-year Average No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned 338 63,708 333 145,806 259 35,197 297 87,127 399 802,515 325 226,871

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Lightning 16 62,922 5 31 144,752 9 13 32,892 5 18 868 6 80 584,782 20 32 165,243 10 Camper 49 43 14 42 9 13 41 643 16 50 262 17 34 1,314 9 43 454 13 Smoker 9 2 3 8 1 2 6 1,121 2 11 1 4 7 3 2 8 226 3 Debris Burning 106 87 31 96 748 29 81 50 31 103 916 35 146 26,578 37 106 5,676 33 Arson 25 6 7 16 5 5 6 7 2 3 1 1 3 4 1 11 5 3 Equipment 4 1 1 12 3 4 10 440 4 43 84,842 14 27 14 7 19 17,060 6 Railroads 4 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Children 31 9 9 31 108 9 19 3 7 23 10 8 24 105 6 26 47 8 Miscellaneous 94 637 28 97 180 29 82 40 32 46 227 15 78 189,715 20 79 38,160 24

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Class A 249 27 74 243 27 73 186 21 72 205 23 69 241 28 60 225 25 69 Class B 71 103 21 70 92 21 61 78 24 78 133 26 114 200 29 79 121 24 Class C 11 362 3 8 226 2 6 96 2 7 154 2 18 722 5 10 312 3 Class D 2 415 1 3 455 1 0 0 0 4 590 1 2 378 1 2 368 1 Class E 1 500 0 3 1,978 1 2 1,039 1 2 1,497 1 2 1,245 1 2 1,252 1 Class F 1 3,381 0 0 0 3 5,056 1 0 0 0 6 19,371 2 2 5,562 1 Class G 3 58,920 1 6 143,028 2 1 28,907 0 1 84,730 0 16 780,571 4 5 219,231 2

171 Arizona

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 5-year Average No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned 396 3,057 438 8,722 481 7,921 406 4,699 530 46,645 450 14,209

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Lightning 46 174 12 45 5,123 10 87 2,730 18 99 968 24 80 7,301 15 71 3,259 16 Camper 8 12 2 6 10 1 6 4 1 8 5 2 20 2,915 4 10 589 2 Smoker 40 37 10 33 24 8 18 12 4 24 23 6 55 103 10 34 40 8 Debris Burning 35 62 9 34 620 8 46 857 10 44 590 11 56 11,033 11 43 2,632 10 Arson 9 291 2 6 45 1 7 31 1 5 864 1 9 9,561 2 7 2,158 2 Equipment 30 52 8 29 30 7 52 52 11 46 517 11 58 10,665 11 43 2,263 10 Railroads 9 847 2 9 27 2 4 2 1 3 2 1 10 8 2 7 177 2 Children 3 5 1 7 6 2 2 5 0 7 27 2 5 11 1 5 11 1 Miscellaneous 216 1,577 55 269 2,837 61 259 4,228 54 170 1,703 42 237 5,048 45 230 3,079 51

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Class A 208 29 47 230 84 53 248 34 ### 225 32 55 290 40 55 240 44 53 Class B 151 262 34 167 366 38 174 348 ### 144 283 35 193 702 36 166 392 37 Class C 28 846 6 32 887 7 45 1,319 ### 26 687 6 26 2,059 5 31 1,160 7 Class D 7 860 2 3 349 1 5 860 ### 6 993 1 8 1,485 2 6 909 1 Class E 2 1,060 0 4 2,214 1 8 4,080 ### 5 2,704 1 5 2,972 1 5 2,606 1 Class F 2 4,822 0 1 1,280 ### 5% 8,726 0 1 2,966 0 Class G 3 30,661 1

172 California

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 5-year Average No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned 5,227 92,456 7,296 277,750 5,149 66,684 6,223 90,985 5,759 112,810 5,931 128,137

137% 137% 137% No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Lightning 237 17,396 5 448 70,154 6 154 219 3 341 1,496 5 114 196 2 259 17,892 4 Camper 225 275 4 319 1,470 4 204 1,498 4 288 6,077 5 157 74 3 239 1,879 4 Smoker 126 1,144 2 142 373 2 137 269 3 164 2,453 3 144 1,041 3 143 1,056 2 Debris Burning 508 921 10 711 3,139 10 623 9,486 12 562 1,469 9 633 8,735 11 607 4,750 10 Arson 372 31,872 7 492 43,280 7 295 4,983 6 403 16,573 6 402 3,831 7 393 20,108 7 Equipment 2,230 32,970 43 2,636 105,267 36 2,181 44,953 42 2,413 28,599 39 1,518 85,001 26 2,196 59,358 37 Railroads 17 69 0 28 283 0 34 69 1 27 375 0 14 44 0 24 168 0 Children 102 121 2 143 366 2 98 130 2 131 271 2 104 43 2 116 186 2 Miscellaneous 1,410 7,688 27 2,377 53,418 33 1,423 5,077 28 1,894 33,672 30 2,673 13,845 46 1,955 22,740 33

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Class A 3,845 104 74 5,285 156 72 3,657 109 71 4,437 123 71 4,130 1,368 72 4,271 372 72 Class B 1,134 2,008 22 1,671 2,925 23 1,290 2,174 25 1,494 2,512 24 1,338 2,224 23 1,385 2,369 23 Class C 184 5,443 4 230 6,127 3 146 4,039 3 229 6,960 4 215 7,445 4 201 6,003 3 Class D 31 5,412 1 43 6,435 1 32 5,522 1 25 4,189 0 49 8,066 1 36 5,925 1 Class E 18 9,737 0 34 18,367 0 14 6,939 0 23 11,959 0 15 8,540 0 21 11,108 0 Class F 11 23,988 0 24 43,108 0 6 13,902 0 10 20,767 0 10 17,714 0 12 23,896 0 Class G 4 45,764 0 9 200,632 0 4 33,999 0 5 44,475 0 2 67,453 0 5 78,465 0

173 Colorado

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 5-year Average No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned 1,349 10,282 1,987 33,255 2,043 76,288 2,966 45,816 3,409 244,252 2,351 81,979

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Lightning 142 506 11 106 2,193 5 399 27,689 20 521 38,506 18 408 151,922 12 315 44,163 13 Camper 7 9 1 10 8 1 44 16 2 51 30 2 37 23 1 30 17 1 Smoker 68 264 5 63 7,937 3 70 722 3 76 205 3 109 2,459 3 77 2,317 3 Debris Burning 300 6,542 22 402 14,657 20 321 5,167 16 384 1,257 13 583 7,348 17 398 6,994 17 Arson 81 129 6 108 2,281 5 120 3,564 6 234 345 8 265 3,055 8 162 1,875 7 Equipment 60 139 4 47 465 2 42 166 2 88 2,014 3 61 309 2 60 619 3 Railroads 4 60 0 2 3 0 2 300 0 17 10 1 30 272 1 11 129 0 Children 85 471 6 29 58 1 44 17 2 104 153 4 75 107 2 67 161 3 Miscellaneous 602 2,162 30 1,220 5,653 36 1,001 38,647 49 1,491 3,296 50 1,841 78,757 54 1,231 25,703 52

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Class A 810 83 60 1,417 122 71 1,293 116 63 2,055 190 69 2,182 136 64 1,551 129 66 Class B 463 831 34 426 744 21 551 909 27 789 1,173 27 951 1,705 28 636 1,072 27 Class C 62 1,698 5 91 2,238 5 109 3,402 5 97 2,655 3 199 5,747 6 112 3,148 5 Class D 7 1,080 1 29 4,489 1 40 5,550 2 13 1,669 0 27 4,083 1 23 3,374 1 Class E 4 2,090 0 17 7,762 1 36 17,951 2 7 3,129 0 19 9,404 1 17 8,067 1 Class F 3 4,500 0 5 6,900 0 10 18,260 0 4 7,000 0 17 39,969 0 8 15,326 0 Class G 2 11,000 ### 4 30,100 0 1 30,000 0 14 183,208 0 4 50,862 0

174 Guam

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 5-year Average No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned 1,943 13,315 516 485 996 3,409 1,244 2,865 491 2,434 1,038 4,502

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Lightning Camper 1 1 0 0 0 0 Smoker 27 65 5 5 13 1 Debris Burning 733 3,632 38 483 414 94 201 291 20 276 441 22 95 44 19 485 1,682 47 Arson 1,082 9,394 56 745 3,053 75 891 2,282 72 343 2,327 70 760 4,825 73 Equipment Railroads 6 6 1 1 1 0 Children 128 289 7 50 65 5 76 141 6 53 63 11 76 157 7 Miscellaneous

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Class A 415 74 21 218 15 42 259 34 26 429 104 34 110 14 22 347 60 26 Class B 1,292 3,271 66 293 403 57 668 1,008 67 752 1,640 60 331 750 67 859 1,919 65 Class C 217 5,038 11 5 67 1 62 1,489 6 56 1,121 5 45 1,048 9 111 2,551 8 Class D 16 2,312 1 7 878 1 7 1 5 622 1 9 1,100 1 Class E 2 650 0 1 260 0 Class F 1 1,970 0 0 788 0 Class G

175 Hawaii

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 5-year Average No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned 205 37,315 132 20,376 125 2,931 108 1,080 188 2,377 152 12,816

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Lightning 1 20 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 0 Camper 9 1 4 3 2 2 3 1 2 8 6 7 9 1 5 6 2 4 Smoker 16 2,259 8 5 84 4 13 9 10 13 16 12 12 28 6 12 479 8 Debris Burning 28 82 14 14 291 11 22 242 18 7 18 6 23 9 12 19 128 12 Arson 49 3,290 24 25 14,174 19 18 74 14 13 118 12 16 139 9 24 3,559 16 Equipment 16 848 8 8 572 6 11 2,197 9 5 61 5 7 1 4 9 736 6 Railroads Children 11 2,474 5 4 7 3 13 13 10 3 12 3 5 2 3 7 502 5 Miscellaneous 76 28,361 37 72 5,226 55 44 393 35 59 849 55 115 2,197 61 73 7,405 48

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Class A 68 10 33 50 10 38 48 7 38 40 11 37 147 15 78 71 11 47 Class B 77 149 38 61 223 46 60 146 48 44 133 41 27 57 14 54 142 35 Class C 36 2,255 18 16 408 12 12 270 10 23 545 21 12 350 6 20 766 13 Class D 9 1,896 4 1 235 1 2 350 2 1 255 1 3 547 2 Class E 9 4,895 4 1 500 1 2 1,150 2 1 391 1 3 1,387 2 Class F 5 15,657 2 1 4,000 1 1 1,008 1 1 1,700 1 2 4,473 1 Class G 1 12,453 0 2 15,000 2 1 5,491 0

176 Idaho

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 5-year Average No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned 362 29,041 431 78,641 801 142,195 547 52,728 386 7,972 505 62,115

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Lightning 217 23,473 60 215 49,727 50 367 108,333 46 251 11,529 46 189 4,969 49 248 39,606 49 Camper 19 29 5 33 19 8 66 50 8 47 30 9 30 104 8 39 46 8 Smoker 7 8 2 15 8 3 29 25 4 4 1 1 5 3 1 12 9 2 Debris Burning 54 168 15 77 981 18 128 723 16 53 227 10 55 536 14 73 527 15 Arson 5 157 1 14 10 3 18 1,604 2 23 1,527 4 12 187 3 14 697 3 Equipment 17 4,112 5 17 190 4 64 8,679 8 35 3,116 6 38 1,271 10 34 3,474 7 Railroads 6 4 2 6 15 1 12 29 1 6 14 1 1 1 0 6 13 1 Children 8 1 2 9 4 2 19 122 2 13 225 2 8 560 2 11 182 2 Miscellaneous 29 1,089 8 45 27,687 10 98 22,630 12 115 36,059 21 48 341 12 67 17,561 13

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Class A 256 28 71 287 36 67 505 66 63 343 43 63 242 25 63 327 40 65 Class B 82 137 23 111 211 26 221 467 28 144 325 26 110 214 28 134 271 26 Class C 17 570 5 17 541 4 45 1,492 6 27 896 5 24 823 6 26 864 5 Class D 3 694 1 4 642 1 12 2,230 1 15 2,472 3 3 408 1 7 1,289 1 Class E 2 1,715 1 3 1,685 1 6 3,771 1 10 5,314 2 5 2,298 1 5 2,957 1 Class F 1 2,958 0 6 15,523 1 7 14,541 1 5 8,101 1 2 4,204 1 4 9,065 1 Class G 1 22,939 0 3 60,003 1 5 119,628 1 3 35,577 1 2 47,629 0

177 Kansas

1998 1999 2000 2001* 2002 5-year Average No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned 3,238 31,676 4,732 35,699 6,439 83,244 3,101 35,092 6,024 93,017 4,707 55,746

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Lightning 239 994 7 152 815 3 382 8,914 6 179 1,514 6 299 3,421 5 250 3,132 5 Camper 5 205 0 1 41 0 Smoker 264 929 8 327 2,342 7 461 2,873 7 244 991 8 650 4,046 11 389 2,236 8 Debris Burning 1,467 15,158 45 1,664 18,199 35 1,869 26,749 29 813 7,999 26 1,473 21,173 24 1,457 17,856 31 Arson 163 1,179 5 412 2,488 9 524 4,415 8 263 2,546 8 617 5,782 10 396 3,282 8 Equipment 64 891 2 98 2,525 2 102 1,569 2 374 6,026 12 405 4,937 7 209 3,190 4 Railroads 119 1,967 4 201 1,508 4 274 8,449 4 58 156 1 130 2,416 3 Children 62 96 2 64 11 1 106 561 2 28 62 1 48 495 1 62 245 1 Miscellaneous 860 10,462 27 1,814 7,811 38 2,721 29,714 42 1,200 15,954 39 2,469 52,802 41 1,813 23,349 39

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Class A 861 447 27 1,434 263 30 1,342 492 21 1,325 377 43 2,443 353 41 1,481 386 31 Class B 1,522 2,141 47 1,556 2,164 33 2,996 3,427 47 1,195 2,833 39 1,550 4,427 26 1,764 2,998 37 Class C 726 10,515 22 1,481 12,984 31 1,878 23,749 29 497 13,642 16 867 23,917 14 1,090 16,961 23 Class D 94 7,038 3 189 6,608 4 158 16,844 2 68 10,320 2 108 15,680 2 123 11,298 3 Class E 30 8,055 1 70 8,180 1 56 20,042 1 15 6,420 0 40 18,240 1 42 12,187 1 Class F 5 3,480 0 2 5,500 0 9 18,690 0 1 1,500 0 9 18,400 0 5 9,514 0 Class G 1 12,000 0 0 2,400 0

178 Montana

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 5-year Average No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned 527 37,866 467 87,356 543 168,744 334 36,986 471 28,811 468 71,953

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Lightning 268 26,545 51 249 43,660 53 310 37,230 57 118 34,297 35 186 19,172 39 226 32,181 48 Camper 60 1,467 11 55 156 12 40 7 7 45 12 13 68 94 14 54 347 11 Smoker 12 4 2 8 175 2 4 3,062 1 8 1 2 12 2 3 9 649 2 Debris Burning 79 692 15 46 2,212 10 50 640 9 64 1,797 19 91 1,115 19 66 1,291 14 Arson 8 6 2 3 202 1 8 42 1 6 56 2 11 36 2 7 68 2 Equipment 23 580 4 21 7,751 4 16 81,618 3 9 422 3 8 4 2 15 18,075 3 Railroads 23 205 4 16 10,958 3 17 9 3 9 32 3 7 2 1 14 2,241 3 Children 4 1 1 14 308 3 13 90 2 8 1 2 9 1 2 10 80 2 Miscellaneous 50 8,366 9 55 21,934 12 85 46,046 16 67 368 20 79 8,385 17 67 17,020 14

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Class A 350 26 66 306 25 66 342 22 63 231 23 69 343 26 73 314 24 67 Class B 140 242 27 110 251 24 128 281 24 80 170 24 97 169 21 111 223 24 Class C 13 378 2 21 646 4 38 1,483 7 12 358 4 20 571 4 21 687 4 Class D 12 1,881 2 9 1,544 2 8 1,366 1 3 455 1 2 214 0 7 1,092 1 Class E 6 3,700 1 7 4,125 1 11 6,038 2 5 3,002 1 3 1,159 1 6 3,605 1 Class F 3 3,545 1 9 24,137 2 10 21,550 2 2 6,478 1 3 8,277 1 5 12,797 1 Class G 3 28,094 1 5 56,628 1 6 138,004 1 1 26,500 0 3 18,395 1 4 53,524 1

179 Nebraska

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 5-year Average No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned 793 34,362 1,350 177,024 1,982 252,249 620 17,230 1,835 90,562 1,316 114,549

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Lightning 106 11,413 13 78 4,060 6 265 173,466 13 91 13,080 15 249 34,789 14 158 47,362 12 Camper 2 1 0 8 18 1 8 10 0 2 2 0 11 95 1 6 25 0 Smoker 48 246 6 76 9,138 6 101 1,180 5 25 94 4 80 858 4 66 2,303 5 Debris Burning 164 7,241 21 356 5,114 26 553 35,245 28 135 1,001 22 500 5,614 27 342 10,843 26 Arson 18 64 2 39 551 3 81 8,428 4 10 114 2 64 1,058 3 42 2,043 3 Equipment 115 5,659 15 229 14,704 17 282 8,507 14 97 683 16 255 31,966 14 196 12,304 15 Railroads 88 1,047 11 108 36,234 8 135 7,683 7 49 395 8 103 641 6 97 9,200 7 Children 6 5 1 13 6 1 9 7 0 4 2 1 20 11 1 10 6 1 Miscellaneous 246 8,686 31 443 107,199 33 548 17,723 28 207 1,859 33 553 15,530 30 399 30,199 30

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Class A 254 32 32 394 49 29 557 67 28 165 18 27 467 58 25 367 45 28 Class B 357 779 45 665 1,391 49 962 2,061 49 339 597 55 937 1,907 51 652 1,347 50 Class C 133 4,232 17 215 5,737 16 340 10,467 17 102 3,145 16 350 10,503 19 228 6,817 17 Class D 28 4,220 4 37 5,785 3 61 9,308 3 8 1,310 1 48 7,752 3 36 5,675 3 Class E 14 8,699 2 20 10,522 1 33 17,047 2 4 2,160 1 20 8,920 1 18 9,470 1 Class F 7 16,400 1 11 17,620 1 18 43,299 1 1 3,000 0 10 22,422 1 9 20,548 1 Class G 8 135,920 1 11 170,000 1 1 7,000 0 3 39,000 0 5 70,384 0

180 Nevada

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 5-year Average No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned 141 1,989 233 2,162 319 87,315 182 22,069 269 2,833 229 23,274

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Lightning 25 110 18 36 166 15 67 68,630 21 30 21,294 16 37 2,487 14 39 18,537 17 Camper 10 5 7 18 2 8 31 13 10 30 13 16 5 12 2 19 9 8 Smoker 4 1 2 1 2 1 3 4 1 2 1 1 Debris Burning 52 6 37 105 71 45 86 75 27 41 16 23 57 156 21 68 65 30 Arson 16 113 5 3 3 2 4 23 2 Equipment 4 2 3 11 105 5 30 15,971 9 17 351 9 8 26 3 14 3,291 6 Railroads 13 5 9 19 15 8 2 2 1 12 82 7 4 9 1 10 23 4 Children 5 34 4 8 2 3 8 51 3 7 17 4 2 17 1 6 24 3 Miscellaneous 32 1,827 23 32 1,800 14 79 2,460 25 41 291 23 153 122 57 67 1,300 29

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Class A 116 13 82 184 22 79 209 23 66 109 12 60 117 10 43 147 16 64 Class B 16 37 11 36 66 15 72 157 23 48 70 26 113 45 42 57 75 25 Class C 8 157 6 11 292 5 21 504 7 16 350 9 24 93 9 16 279 7 Class D 1 0 6 1,277 2 3 462 2 12 398 4 4 427 2 Class E 2 1,250 1 1 69 1 2 333 1 1 330 0 Class F 1 1,782 1 1 1,782 0 5 5,601 2 3 4,391 2 1 1,954 0 2 3,102 1 Class G 4 78,503 1 2 16,715 1 1 19,044 1

181 New Mexico

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 5-year Average No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned 1,117 123,748 469 52,446 1,134 376,475 476 39,849 794 226,492 798 163,802

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Lightning 341 51,366 31 88 12,576 19 442 76,320 39 222 26,761 47 324 179,921 41 283 69,389 36 Camper 7 37 1 10 10 2 12 1,030 1 7 6 1 16 5,622 2 10 1,341 1 Smoker 36 1,133 3 40 2,112 9 55 14,066 5 14 275 3 29 396 4 35 3,596 4 Debris Burning 173 11,766 15 90 12,047 19 165 12,940 15 47 381 10 141 1,611 18 123 7,749 15 Arson 47 1,484 4 8 142 2 30 9,424 3 12 49 3 24 942 3 24 2,408 3 Equipment 85 10,283 8 51 5,069 11 63 15,955 6 29 179 6 49 2,025 6 55 6,702 7 Railroads 8 90 1 14 3,980 3 36 56,361 3 9 27 2 17 41 2 17 12,100 2 Children 27 58 2 8 419 2 15 339 1 5 2 1 7 850 1 12 334 2 Miscellaneous 393 47,531 35 160 16,091 34 316 190,040 28 131 12,169 28 187 35,084 24 237 60,183 30

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Class A 253 39 23 146 26 31 315 1,456 28 189 30 40 348 92 44 250 329 31 Class B 478 1,188 43 193 501 41 449 1,083 40 184 374 39 315 736 40 324 776 41 Class C 248 7,997 22 77 1,927 16 212 6,397 19 78 2,256 16 76 3,711 10 138 4,458 17 Class D 58 9,376 5 21 3,115 4 65 10,485 6 9 1,522 2 18 4,415 2 34 5,783 4 Class E 49 23,340 4 18 9,510 4 51 25,273 4 7 3,116 1 17 8,191 2 28 13,886 4 Class F 29 60,808 3 11 23,867 2 27 57,656 2 7 14,301 1 11 81,842 1 17 47,695 2 Class G 2 21,000 0 3 13,500 1 15 274,125 1 2 18,250 0 9 177,505 1 6 100,876 1

182 North Dakota

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 5-year Average No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned 397 7,201 561 83,640 612 64,113 219 6,504 325 29,565 423 38,205

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Lightning 52 428 13 22 544 4 73 19,174 12 7 55 3 77 11,779 24 46 6,396 11 Camper 3 91 1 9 20 2 10 167 2 4 56 1 Smoker 8 24 2 17 363 3 14 89 2 4 86 2 4 38 1 9 120 2 Debris Burning 156 2,920 39 290 66,839 52 246 13,481 40 129 3,510 59 63 3,284 19 177 18,007 42 Arson 14 4 4 21 321 4 8 222 1 1 25 0 9 114 2 Equipment 29 2,354 7 90 13,780 16 100 8,339 16 18 1,341 8 50 2,724 15 57 5,708 14 Railroads 29 762 7 25 186 4 21 354 3 4 23 2 10 108 3 18 287 4 Children 16 18 4 11 28 2 10 24 2 3 23 1 3 99 1 9 38 2 Miscellaneous 90 600 23 76 1,559 14 130 22,263 21 54 1,466 25 117 11,508 36 93 7,479 22 17

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Class A 184 46 46 158 38 28 126 30 21 58 7 26 99 20 30 125 28 30 Class B 128 270 32 252 602 45 246 614 40 87 215 40 104 263 32 163 393 39 Class C 76 2,415 19 118 3,205 21 177 5,269 29 59 1,690 27 80 2,179 25 102 2,952 24 Class D 5 620 1 22 2,975 4 30 4,940 5 10 1,300 5 23 3,253 7 18 2,618 4 Class E 2 1,150 1 7 3,320 1 21 10,340 3 4 2,292 2 13 5,800 4 9 4,580 2 Class F 2 2,700 1 2 4,500 0 9 22,420 1 1 1,000 0 4 7,300 1 4 7,584 1 Class G 2 69,000 0 3 20,500 0 2 10,750 1 1 20,050 0

183 Oregon

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 5-year Average No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned 938 2,680 1,145 9,605 894 13,247 1,241 51,268 1,175 99,047 1,079 35,169

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Lightning 305 359 33 338 1,892 30 157 3,319 18 485 46,976 39 308 92,395 26 355 29,016 33 Camper 80 395 9 138 1,609 12 91 69 10 107 149 9 125 596 11 137 570 13 Smoker 57 33 6 82 199 7 71 16 8 65 58 5 82 60 7 144 3,236 13 Debris Burning 181 582 19 209 3,086 18 182 7,906 20 179 1,061 14 217 2,048 18 214 2,955 20 Arson 35 34 4 25 543 2 52 46 6 47 167 4 34 86 3 109 309 10 Equipment 127 388 14 184 1,818 16 177 334 20 170 2,529 14 219 2,487 19 179 1,708 17 Railroads 14 128 1 8 88 1 10 492 1 15 15 1 9 1 1 33 161 3 Children 32 8 3 59 242 5 55 41 6 65 118 5 40 86 3 90 109 8 Miscellaneous 107 753 11 102 128 9 99 24 11 108 195 9 141 1,288 12 469 5,376 43

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Class A 632 32 67 787 58 69 667 48 75 927 77 75 814 65 69 846 214 78 Class B 268 379 29 305 532 27 202 394 23 253 632 20 272 521 23 265 645 25 Class C 28 929 3 37 1,173 3 13 384 1 45 1,535 4 53 1,757 5 37 1,353 3 Class D 8 1,212 1 7 1,300 1 5 494 1 10 1,502 1 13 1,644 1 10 1,650 1 Class E 1 48 0 6 2,746 1 4 1,050 0 2 753 0 5 2,692 0 4 1,976 0 Class F 1 80 0 3 3,796 0 1 1,296 0 1 1,323 0 6 7,178 1 3 6,567 0 Class G 2 9,581 0 3 45,446 0 12 85,190 1 361 33,342 33

184 South Dakota

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 5-year Average No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned 164 4,604 742 71,989 1,173 404,130 564 55,976 725 166,928 674 140,725

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Lightning 46 638 28 66 4,852 9 336 192,012 29 156 18,141 28 215 82,113 30 164 59,551 24 Camper 16 20 10 2 0 130 4,390 11 41 457 7 4 1 1 39 974 6 Smoker 3 1 2 18 94 2 20 1,645 2 11 143 2 11 9 2 13 378 2 Debris Burning 24 172 15 270 10,283 36 233 32,210 20 74 1,816 13 190 4,691 26 158 9,834 23 Arson 6 19 1 1 83,500 0 1 0 2 16,704 0 Equipment 22 3,542 13 157 13,185 21 152 44,677 13 115 15,908 20 106 34,749 15 110 22,412 16 Railroads 1 10 1 11 442 1 22 1,910 2 3 2,601 1 3 120 0 8 1,017 1 Children 14 46 9 41 251 6 37 85 3 28 105 5 28 4,398 4 30 977 4 Miscellaneous 38 175 23 171 42,863 23 242 43,701 21 136 16,805 24 167 40,847 23 151 28,878 22

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Class A 75 11 46 194 26 26 182 20 16 141 38 25 151 24 21 149 24 22 Class B 52 101 32 332 721 45 569 1,281 49 272 601 48 333 7,781 46 312 2,097 46 Class C 33 682 20 165 5,047 22 278 8,672 24 105 3,237 19 172 5,083 24 151 4,544 22 Class D 2 260 1 26 4,034 4 58 9,595 5 20 3,180 4 30 4,637 4 27 4,341 4 Class E 1 450 1 10 4,744 1 41 19,035 3 15 6,970 3 14 10,132 2 16 8,266 2 Class F 1 3,100 1 11 20,917 1 25 47,472 2 9 17,450 2 20 45,600 3 13 26,908 2 Class G 4 36,500 1 20 318,055 2 2 24,500 0 5 93,671 1 6 94,545 1

185 Utah

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 5-year Average No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres ` Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned 495 24,603 735 133,353 855 52,257 834 61,756 613 68,534 706 68,101

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Lightning 244 15,069 49 289 24,436 39 569 41,848 67 540 53,386 65 325 53,158 53 393 37,579 56 Camper 21 2 4 36 2,930 5 34 67 4 28 12 3 38 3,596 6 31 1,321 4 Smoker 12 69 2 19 167 3 14 7 2 9 2 1 10 45 2 13 58 2 Debris Burning 47 758 9 103 5,324 14 42 479 5 54 98 6 54 505 9 60 1,433 8 Arson 29 64 6 61 16,213 8 50 3,953 6 40 4,065 5 34 638 6 43 4,987 6 Equipment 37 1,915 7 62 3,792 8 53 454 6 43 1,940 5 44 5,999 7 48 2,820 7 Railroads 12 568 2 31 61,138 4 20 2,038 2 11 88 1 11 1,263 2 17 13,019 2 Children 11 11 2 8 215 1 9 9 1 10 7 1 4 16 1 8 52 1 Miscellaneous 82 6,147 11 126 19,138 21 64 3,402 ### 99 2,158 ### 93 3,314 ### 93 6,832 13

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Class A 251 22 51 305 44 41 498 136 58 515 45 62 385 29 ### 391 55 55 Class B 153 192 31 288 740 39 256 2,312 30 223 380 27 160 262 ### 216 777 31 Class C 54 1,207 11 81 3,266 11 52 1,403 6 53 1,181 6 30 825 ### 54 1,576 8 Class D 12 1,765 2 17 3,266 2 16 1,498 2 18 1,375 2 7 765 ### 14 1,734 2 Class E 11 1,574 2 25 14,771 3 10 2,588 1 9 2,651 1 8 2,879 ### 13 4,893 2 Class F 9 6,117 2 16 36,729 2 18 25,383 2 13 17,246 2 13 7,914 ### 14 18,678 2 Class G 5 13,726 1 3 74,537 0 5 18,937 1 3 38,878 0 10 55,890 ### 5 40,394 1

186 Washington

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 5-year Average No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned 992 23,511 1,002 6,796 780 18,027 809 17,700 889 10,063 894 15,219

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Lightning 194 19,189 20 120 529 12 81 13,946 10 140 9,542 17 134 462 15 134 8,734 15 Camper 107 24 11 188 431 19 123 947 16 132 193 16 130 204 15 136 360 15 Smoker 41 35 4 40 17 4 28 20 4 27 9 3 31 19 3 33 20 4 Debris Burning 214 545 22 272 1,175 28 190 611 24 173 888 21 197 3,059 22 209 1,256 23 Arson 48 951 5 35 967 4 40 1,069 5 24 27 3 34 105 4 36 624 4 Equipment 62 295 6 32 166 3 13 47 2 5 17 1 27 19 3 28 109 3 Railroads 14 124 1 13 30 1 9 44 1 20 34 2 13 18 1 14 50 2 Children 45 87 5 47 124 5 28 95 4 26 13 3 43 30 5 38 70 4 Miscellaneous 267 2,261 27 225 3,357 23 268 1,248 34 262 6,977 32 280 6,147 31 260 3,998 29

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Class A 695 73 70 643 67 64 472 56 61 513 54 63 550 800 62 575 210 64 Class B 255 458 26 308 594 31 263 493 34 249 492 31 287 526 32 272 513 30 Class C 31 1,000 3 41 1,164 4 35 1,245 4 34 976 4 39 1,013 4 36 1,080 4 Class D 6 802 1 7 1,192 1 5 930 1 6 1,056 1 8 411 1 6 878 1 Class E 3 1,582 0 2 1,169 0 3 2,137 0 4 2,005 0 2 942 0 3 1,567 0 Class F 1 1,162 0 1 2,610 0 2 7,142 0 3 6,371 0 1 3,457 0 Class G 1 18,434 0 2 13,166 0 1 5,785 0 1 7,477 0

187 Wyoming

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 5-year Average No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned 558 22,942 732 84,300 909 358,698 219 18,414 815 163,226 647 129,516

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Lightning 185 20,717 25 112 4,317 15 348 296,528 38 72 11,815 33 244 69,227 30 192 80,521 30 Camper 7 218 1 8 5 1 12 91 5 42 321 5 14 127 2 Smoker 10 3 1 26 86 4 15 86 2 4 4 2 50 204 6 21 77 3 Debris Burning 80 160 11 125 1,820 17 130 2,915 14 21 938 10 84 453 10 88 1,257 14 Arson 29 46 4 33 52 5 70 91 8 10 78 5 101 90,163 12 49 18,086 8 Equipment 10 30 1 40 17,078 5 27 660 3 32 58 15 132 1,086 16 48 3,782 7 Railroads 70 163 10 156 18,415 21 96 445 11 19 121 9 45 130 6 77 3,855 12 Children 11 13 2 16 10 2 11 25 1 11 50 5 10 20 2 Miscellaneous 163 1,810 22 217 42,304 30 204 57,943 22 38 5,259 17 117 1,642 14 148 21,792 23

No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres No. No. Acres % % % % % % Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Fires Burned Class A 342 93 47 320 87 44 340 1,413 37 68 7 31 282 31 35 270 326 42 Class B 153 353 21 295 656 40 361 959 40 119 205 54 421 730 52 270 581 42 Class C 46 1,317 6 84 3,356 11 119 3,343 13 19 659 9 73 2,307 9 68 2,196 11 Class D 8 1,391 1 17 2,976 2 34 5,923 4 3 316 1 13 1,738 2 15 2,469 2 Class E 7 17,738 1 8 4,024 1 32 14,352 4 4 200 2 10 4,889 1 12 8,241 2 Class F 1 1,300 0 3 5,001 0 11 71,978 1 5 10,020 2 5 9,234 1 5 19,507 1 Class G 1 750 0 5 68,200 1 12 260,730 1 1 5,207 0 11 144,297 1 6 95,837 1

188 Appendix

189 Wildland/Urban Interface

The Wildland/Urban Interface fire problem has existed for hundreds of years. As early as 1793, the Governor of Upper and Lower California “prohibited all kinds of burning, not only in the vicinity of the towns....which cause some detriment....” In the last 50 years the problem has grown more complex as more development has occurred. This section of Fire in the West focuses on the common elements of the Wildland/Urban Interface problem, and seeks to better define the condition(s) in the West.

Definitions:

Life and Property Fire Protection – a service with the primary responsibility to protect structures AND the people who occupy these structures from injury or death. This fire protection service is normally provided by rural and/or local government fire departments, with specially trained and equipped personnel. After life safety, the priority is to keep the fire from leaving the area of origin. It also means protecting the structure from an advancing wildland fire. Local taxpayers fund this service through a variety of taxing authorities. (The equipment and training required to conduct life and property protection are not normally provided to the wildland firefighter.)

Structure Protection – to protect structures from the threat of damage from an advancing wildland fire. This normally does not include an attack on fire that is inside the structure. It involves the use of fire control lines (constructed or natural) and the extinguishment of spot fires near or on the structure. This protection can be provided by both the rural and/ or local government fire department firefighter and the wildland fire protection firefighter.

Structural Fire Protection – is defined as interior and exterior actions take to suppress and extinguish a burning structure or improvement associated with standard structure fire protection, equipment and training. Structural fire suppression is the responsibility of local government entities, although there are some locations in the West where there is currently no structural fire agency in place.

190 Wildland Fire Protection – a service with the primary responsibility of protecting natural resources and watersheds from damage by wildfires. State and federal forestry or land management agencies normally provide wildland fire protection with specially trained and equipped personnel. Various taxing authorities and fees fund this service. Some wildland fire protection agencies have the responsibilities for intermingled life and property protection when they are threatened by a wildland fire...and some do not. It is nearly impossible for an incident commander to separate these responsibilities (and the associated costs) during a wildland fire. (The equipment and training required to conduct wildland fire protection are not normally provided to the local government fire department firefighter. If a fire protection agency is routinely called upon to fight wildland fires, they are usually trained and equipped to do so. The problem arises when personnel from an agency are called upon to fight fires for which they are NOT properly equipped or trained.)

Wildland/Urban Interface – in relation to wildland/urban fire, a set of conditions that provides the opportunity for fire to burn from wildland vegetation to the home/structure ignition zone. There are four different wildland/urban conditions:

Interface Condition – is a situation where structures abut wildland fuels. There is a clear line of demarcation between the structures and the wildland fuels along roads or back fences (Figure 4). Wildland fuels do not continue into the developed area. The development density for an interface condition is usually 3+ structures per acre. Fire protection is normally provided by a local government fire department with the responsibility to protect the structure from both an interior fire and an advancing wildland fire (unless the line of demarcation is also a jurisdictional boundary).

Intermix Condition – is a condition where structures are scattered throughout a wildland area (Figure 5). There is no clear line of demarcation; the wildland fuels are continuous outside of and within the developed area. The development density in the intermix ranges from structures very close together to one structure per 40 acres. Fire protection districts funded by various taxing authorities normally provide life and property fire protection, and may also have wildland fire protection responsibilities.

Occluded Condition – is a situation, normally within a city, where structures abut an Figure 4. Interface Condition, where there is a clear line island of wildland fuels (park or open space). There is a clear line of demarcation between the structures and the wildland fuels.

191 between the structures and the wildland fuels along roads or back fences. The development density for an occluded condition is usually similar to those found in the interface condition and the occluded area is usually less than 1,000 acres in size. Fire protection is normally provided by a local government fire department. The trend is for local government to require developers to include open space in their plans, but not include a long-term mechanism Figure 6. Intermix Condition, where there the structures are scattered throughout the wildland fuels. for their maintenance; thus the hazardous fire condition increases over time.

Rural Condition – is a situation where scattered small clusters of structures (ranches, farms, resorts, or summer cabins) are exposed to wildland fuels (Figure 6). There may be miles between these clusters. Structural fire protection service may not be available. These types of developments often exceed the capabilities of both the structural and wildland fire protection systems. Wildland fire protection agencies have little or no control over such development and may be unable to provide protection due to statu- tory barriers.

Areas of Safe Refuge – an area of safe refuge is like a safety zone, a place where a person is safe from a fire. Communities can be designed in such a way to provide a place of refuge during a wildland fire.

Defensible Space - the area immediately around a structure where fuel needs to be reduced to allow firefighters to work safely. Figure 6. Rural Condition, where the structures or clusters of structures are situated in wildland fuels. These structures or Dwelling Unit – is a house, home, apartment, etc. where humans reside. A motel or clusters are often miles apart. hotel room is not a dwelling unit because the length of say is usually short-term.

192 Fire-resistive Construction - is the use of materials and systems in the design and construction of a building or structure to safeguard against the spread of fire within a building or structure and the spread of fire to or from buildings or structures to the wildland/urban interface area.

Hazard – the degree of flammability of the fuels once a fire starts. This includes the fuel (type, arrangement, volume, condition, etc.), topography and weather.

Home or House – is usually a privately owned structure in which people live. It does not house more than one family.

Home/Structure Ignition Zone - the area that principally determines the potential for ignition of the home/stucture from wildland fire. It includes the home/structure and its immediate surroundings within 100 to 200 feet.

Ignition-Resistant Construction – incorporates the use of materials and design that enables a structure to withstand ignition from radiant heat, fire brands or direct flame impinge- ment.

Risk – the chance of a fire starting from any cause.

Structural Fire Protection – is defined as interior and exterior actions taken to suppress and extinguish a burning structure or improvement utilizing standard building fire protection methods, equipment and training . Structural fire suppression is generally the responsibility of a local government entity, although there are some locations in the West where there is currently no structural fire agency in place.

Structure – is a building, home, business, barn, etc., that is built within one foundation/ framework. An apartment building is a structure with multiple dwelling units.

Structure Protection – to protect structures from the threat of damage from an advancing wildland fire (Figure 11). This normally does not include an attack on fire that is inside the structure. It involves the use of fire control lines (constructed or natural) and the extinguishment of spot fires near or on the structure. This protection can be provided by the

193 rural and/or local government fire department firefighter and the wildland fire protection firefighter.

Structures saved – a structure is considered saved if it is within the exterior boundaries of the fire or directly adjacent to the fireline, and did not burn down or suffer serious damage as a result of the wildfire.

Structures threatened – a structure is considered threatened if it is within the exterior boundaries of the fire, or within ¼-mile of the exterior boundary of the fire, or within the fire behavior projection for the next 24-hours.

Suppression – taking specific actions to control and extinguish an unwanted wildland fire.

Wildfire Causes – there are three general causes of wildland fires, natural (lightning), acci- dental (debris burning, children with matches, etc.) and intentional (arson).

Wildland/urban interface fire – is (1) a fire burning primarily in wildland fuels that threatens or destroys several structures; (2) That situation where the fuel feeding the fire changes from wildland fuel to urban fuel. For this to happen, wildland fire must be close enough for flying brands and/or flames to make contact with flammable portion of homes/structures.

Wildfire Fire Suppression Strategies – There are two general wildfire management strategies:

194 Federal Land Ownership

The federal government owns or controls 648,969,668 acres or 58 percent of the land in the West (Tables 1 and 9). Each of the various federal agencies have different roles, missions, and responsibilities.

USDA Forest Service - The Forest Service manages the 191 million acre National Forest System under principles of ecosystem management. The national forests contain 140 million acres of forestland, with the remaining acres in grasslands. The Forest Service owns 166.6 million acres in the West. There are 184.6 million acres within the various national forests. This includes 18 million acres of privately owned land (Table 2).

USDI Bureau of Land Management - The BLM is responsible for the multiple-use management of natural resources on 270 million acres of public land and for supervising mineral leasing and operations on an additional 300 million acres of federal mineral estate that underlies other surface ownership. BLM manages 262.7 million acres in 12 western states and Alaska (Table 3). Under federal regulations, all Public Domain is “owned” by the BLM. Other federal agencies (Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Defense, etc.) manage millions of acres of Public Domain.

USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs - The BIA manages and protects natural resources on 46.6 million acres in the West. There are three classifications for the lands they protect: Tribal Lands - 40.2 million acres; Individually Owned Lands - 6.1 million acres; and BIA owned lands - 288 thousand acres (Table 4). The BIA provides a wide variety of community and social services, maintains law enforcement systems, and assists in agricultural, ranching, forestry, and mining activities on reservations, and funds 187 BIA and tribal-operated schools in 24 states.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service - The FWS conserves, protects, and enhances fish and wildlife and their habitats. Management duties extend over 91 million acres of public land and include 494 national wildlife refuges, 32 wetland management districts, 84 fish hatcheries, 23 research centers, and 88 associated field stations. In the West, the Fish and Wildlife Service manage 84.8 million acres, most of which is in Alaska and most of them are in Public Domain (Table 5). The FWS is responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act and providing comments and consultations on water development and water quality under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

195 Department of Defense - The Department of Defense manages 25 million acres of public lands at 600 major installations in the United States, and 2 million acres abroad. In the West, the Department of Defense protects 10.4 million acres, most of this land is owned by the Department of the Army (Table 6). The Department is an active steward of these installations, which vary greatly in size and use and contain a rich diversity of flora and fauna. Army Corps of Engineers, which manages 11.7 million acres of land and inland water areas, provides recreation opportunities at 463 lakes throughout the United States. In the West, the Corps owns 31 thousand acres.

USDI National Park Service - The National Park Service protects natural and cultural resources while promoting outdoor recreation, historic preservation, and environmental awareness. The National Park Service owns and protects 69.6 million acres in the West (Table 7).

Other Federal Agencies - There are several other federal agencies (Bureau of Reclamations, Department of Energy, etc.) that own and manage over 8 million acres in the West (Table 8).

Table 1 Federal Land Ownership Data Areas, in acres. Fish and Bur of Land Bur of Indian National Dept of Other Forest Service Wildlife TOTAL Management Affairs Park Service Defense Federal Service Alaska 22,004,745 86,908,060 1,140,410 76,321,037 52,891,681 1,677,718 22,851 240,966,502 Arizona 11,250,693 14,252,778 20,718,207 1,716,858 2,629,633 1,219,717 2,751 51,790,637 California 20,627,691 14,556,074 191,020 323,642 4,615,013 1,753,493 434,695 42,501,628 Colorado 14,501,592 8,296,512 32,835 81,574 574,689 415,473 358,175 24,260,850 Hawaii 1 0 0 288,511 220,410 127,734 1,627 638,283 Idaho 20,442,651 11,847,328 55,700 76,068 86,866 14,402 1,067,840 33,590,855 Kansas 108,175 0 40,234 58,332 698 143,447 97,088 447,974 Montana 16,872,610 8,060,382 1,074,907 1,153,013 1,221,314 2,540 316,204 28,700,970 Nebraska 352,133 6,580 66,469 172,360 5,863 18,703 119,139 741,247 Nevada 5,815,856 47,844,391 1,233,000 2,318,069 165,500 484,965 1,699,739 59,561,520 New Mexico 9,326,599 12,770,569 8,349,148 384,251 371,827 3,180,226 453,865 34,836,485 North Dakota 1,105,779 59,717 866,896 487,654 71,640 2,112 1,273,320 3,867,118 Oregon 15,664,078 16,223,739 796,588 557,479 194,859 31,072 133,625 33,601,440 South Dakota 2,013,628 279,869 5,002,056 198,086 263,629 890 60,455 7,818,613 Utah 8,112,462 22,877,713 2,331,094 419,169 2,015,426 939,973 660,613 37,356,450 Washington 9,174,956 370,110 2,602,254 186,369 1,932,401 433,251 752,979 15,452,320 Wyoming 9,258,281 18,383,926 1,889,532 86,486 2,393,198 9,512 815,841 32,836,776

TOTAL 166,631,930 262,737,748 46,390,350 84,828,958 69,654,647 10,455,228 8,270,807 648,969,668 196 Percent Federally Owned Lands Alaska 65.93% Arizona 71.25% California 42.41% Colorado 36.49% Hawaii 15.55% Idaho 63.46% Kansas 0.85% Montana 30.77% Nebraska 1.51% Nevada 84.77% New Mexico 44.80% North Dakota 8.70% Oregon 54.55% South Dakota 15.99% Utah 70.89% Washington 36.19% Wyoming 52.67%

197 Table 2 USDA Forest Service Land Ownership Data Area, in acres. Percent Non- National Forest Total Gross Area Forest Lands Other Lands (2.2) System (2.1) (2.3) within Nation Forests Alaska 22,004,745 2,350,390 24,355,135 9.65% Arizona 11,250,693 636,712 11,887,405 5.36% California 20,627,691 3,774,754 24,402,445 15.47% Colorado 14,501,592 1,550,266 16,051,858 9.66% Hawaii 1 1 Idaho 20,442,651 1,229,036 21,671,687 5.67% Kansas 108,175 8,144 116,319 7.00% Montana 16,872,610 2,231,103 19,103,713 11.68% Nebraska 352,133 90,359 442,492 20.42% Nevada 5,815,856 459,457 6,275,313 7.32% New Mexico 9,326,599 1,040,110 10,366,709 10.03% North Dakota 1,105,779 4 1,105,783 0.00% Oregon 15,664,078 1,845,269 17,509,347 10.54% South Dakota 2,013,628 350,393 2,364,021 14.82% Utah 8,112,462 1,098,147 9,210,609 11.92% Washington 9,174,956 894,472 10,069,428 8.88% Wyoming 9,258,281 445,267 9,703,548 4.59%

TOTAL 166,631,930 18,003,883 184,635,813 9.75%

Source: Land Areas of the National Forest System, USDA Forest Service, FS-383, January 1996.

Notes:

2.1 - National Forest Service Lands are those lands owned by the Forest Service. This includes National Forest Lands, Purchase Units (Weeks Law), National Grasslands, Land Utilization Project Lands, Research and Experimental Lands, etc.) 2.2 - Private Lands, State Lands, or lands owned by another federal agency. 2.3 - The total gross lands within the exterior boundary (the black line on the administrative map) of the National Forest.

198 Table 3 USDI Bureau of Land Management Land Ownership Data Area, in acres.

Vacant Public Vacant Public Land Utilization Other Lands Lands Outside Lands Within TOTAL Project Lands Managed by BLM Grazing Districts Grazing Districts Alaska 86,908,060 86,908,060 Arizona 1,516,765 10,093,234 32,321 2,610,458 14,252,778 California 7,363,543 1,725,343 5,467,188 14,556,074 Colorado 480,331 6,781,734 36,206 998,241 8,296,512 Hawaii 0 Idaho 422,341 10,733,321 72,276 619,390 11,847,328 Kansas 0 Montana 1,148,321 4,940,802 1,801,171 170,088 8,060,382 Nebraska 6,580 6,580 Nevada 3,140,726 44,493,239 3,127 207,299 47,844,391 New Mexico 1,355,577 11,047,165 229,500 138,327 12,770,569 North Dakota 59,536 181 59,717 Oregon 585,675 12,455,100 78,124 3,104,840 16,223,739 South Dakota 272,277 7,592 279,869 Utah 21,155,026 45,083 1,677,604 22,877,713 Washington 366,921 3,189 370,110 Wyoming 3,910,677 11,273,811 10,434 3,189,004 18,383,926

TOTAL 107,537,330 134,698,775 2,308,242 18,193,401 262,737,748

Source: Public Land Statistics 1997, USDI Bureau of Land Management, (BLM/BC/ST-98/001+1165), March 1998.

199 Table 4 USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs Land Ownership Data Area in acres Percent Individually Bur of Indian Tribal Lands (4.1) TOTAL Individually Owned Lands (4.2) Affairs Lands (4.3) Owned Lands Alaska 83,880 1,056,530 1,140,410 92.64% Arizona 20,370,975 256,766 90,466 20,718,207 1.24% California 148,535 36,519 5,966 191,020 19.12% Colorado 14,882 17,946 7 32,835 54.66% Hawaii 254,418 35 91 254,544 0.01% Idaho 53,351 2,168 181 55,700 3.89% Kansas 10,841 29,357 36 40,234 72.97% Montana 822,088 252,060 759 1,074,907 23.45% Nebraska 23,174 43,288 7 66,469 65.13% Nevada 1,149,492 78,529 4,979 1,233,000 6.37% New Mexico 7,500,568 668,840 179,740 8,349,148 8.01% North Dakota 245,630 619,338 1,928 866,896 71.44% Oregon 666,106 130,466 16 796,588 16.38% South Dakota 2,617,895 2,381,516 2,645 5,002,056 47.61% Utah 2,297,770 33,237 87 2,331,094 1.43% Washington 2,170,346 431,748 160 2,602,254 16.59% Wyoming 1,794,589 93,647 1,296 1,889,532 4.96%

TOTAL 40,224,540 6,131,990 288,364 46,644,894 13.15%

Source: Acreage Recapitulations by State, USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs, December 1996.

Notes: 4.1 - Lands granted to the various tribes via treaties. 4.2 - Land owned by various private individuals. 4.3 - Land owned by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

200 Table 5 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Land Ownership Data Area, in acres. Agreement Reserved from Acquired by other Percent of Land in Devise or Gift Purchased Easement or TOTAL Public Domain Federal Agency Public Domain Lease Alaska 76,310,177 974 9,886 1,321 76,322,358 99.98% Arizona 1,575,940 16,714 1,200 123,004 1,576 1,718,434 91.71% California 148,535 36,519 5,966 132,622 104,787 428,429 34.67% Colorado 14,882 17,946 7 48,739 2,293 83,867 17.74% Hawaii 254,418 35 91 33,967 961 289,472 87.89% Idaho 53,351 2,168 181 20,368 13,186 89,254 59.77% Kansas 29,357 28,975 6 58,338 0.00% Montana 822,088 252,060 759 78,106 96,922 1,249,935 65.77% Nebraska 20,660 71,399 2,139 78,162 65,476 237,836 8.69% Nevada 2,236,672 4,139 77,258 1,019 2,319,088 96.45% New Mexico 72,981 439 220,216 90,615 767 385,018 18.96% North Dakota 18,538 150,103 4,175 314,838 916,513 1,404,167 1.32% Oregon 272,142 73,376 773 211,188 36,267 593,746 45.83% South Dakota 1,848 31,949 6,088 158,201 816,685 1,014,771 0.18% Utah 65,781 2,383 4,272 346,733 4,244 423,413 15.54% Washington 42,652 75,757 791 67,169 11,161 197,530 21.59% Wyoming 32,961 27,474 4,474 21,577 6,634 93,120 35.40%

TOTAL 81,943,626 787,679 256,245 1,841,408 2,079,818 86,908,776

Source: Annual Report of Lands Under Control of the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, September 1997.

201 Table 6 US Department of Defense Land Ownership Data Area, in acres. Dept of the Air Corps of Dept of the Army Dept of the Navy TOTAL Force Engineers Alaska 1,669,149 8,569 1,677,718 Arizona 957,874 2,770 259,073 1,219,717 California 975,018 726,570 46,636 5,269 1,753,493 Colorado 414,345 1,128 415,473 Hawaii 106,465 20,824 443 2 127,734 Idaho 15 11,099 3,288 14,402 Kansas 125,788 15 3,677 13,967 143,447 Montana 2,120 420 2,540 Nebraska 18,294 7 402 18,703 Nevada 152,275 33,363 299,327 484,965 New Mexico 3,163,121 1 17,104 3,180,226 North Dakota 900 1,212 2,112 Oregon 17,602 10,112 41 3,317 31,072 South Dakota 12 878 890 Utah 848,263 518 91,192 939,973 Washington 404,481 21,824 916 6,030 433,251 Wyoming 8,897 2 613 9,512

TOTAL 8,864,619 816,006 742,730 31,873 10,455,228

Source: Federally Owned Property in the United States, by State, Agency and Bureau, US General Service Administration, October 1996.

202 Table 7 USDI National Park Service Land Ownership Data Table 8 Other Federal Agency Land Ownership Data Area, in acres. Area, in acres.

Alaska 52,891,681 Alaska 22,851 Arizona 2,629,633 Arizona 2,751 California 4,615,013 California 434,695 Colorado 574,689 Colorado 358,175 Hawaii 220,410 Hawaii 1,627 Idaho 86,866 Idaho 1,067,840 Kansas 698 Kansas 97,088 Montana 1,221,314 Montana 316,204 Nebraska 5,863 Nebraska 119,139 Nevada 165,500 Nevada 1,699,739 New Mexico 371,827 New Mexico 453,865 North Dakota 71,640 North Dakota 1,273,320 Oregon 194,859 Oregon 133,625 South Dakota 263,629 South Dakota 60,455 Utah 2,015,426 Utah 660,613 Washington 1,932,401 Washington 752,979 Wyoming 2,393,198 Wyoming 815,841

TOTAL 69,654,647 TOTAL 8,270,807

Source: Federally Owned Property in the United States, by State, Agency and Source: Federally Owned Property in the United States, by State, Agency and Bureau, US General Service Administration, October 1996. Bureau, US General Service Administration, October 1996.

203 Table 9 Percentage of State in Federal Land Ownership

Percent of Bur of Fish and National Forest Bur of Land Dept of Other State in Total Land in Indian Wildlife Park Service Management Defense Federal Federal State, in acres. Affairs Service Service Ownership Alaska 6.0% 23.8% 0.3% 20.9% 14.5% 0.5% 0.0% 65.93% 365,481,600 Arizona 15.5% 19.6% 28.5% 2.4% 3.6% 1.7% 0.0% 71.25% 72,688,000 California 20.6% 14.5% 0.2% 0.4% 4.6% 1.7% 0.4% 42.41% 100,206,720 Colorado 21.8% 12.5% 0.0% 0.1% 0.9% 0.6% 0.5% 36.49% 66,485,760 Hawaii 0.0% 0.0% 6.2% 7.1% 5.4% 3.1% 0.0% 15.55% 4,105,600 Idaho 38.6% 22.4% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 2.0% 63.46% 52,933,120 Kansas 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.85% 52,510,720 Montana 18.1% 8.6% 1.2% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 0.3% 30.77% 93,271,040 Nebraska 0.7% 0.0% 0.1% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 1.51% 49,031,680 Nevada 8.3% 68.1% 1.8% 3.3% 0.2% 0.7% 2.4% 84.77% 70,264,320 New Mexico 12.0% 16.4% 10.7% 0.5% 0.5% 4.1% 0.6% 44.80% 77,766,400 North Dakota 2.5% 0.1% 2.0% 3.2% 0.2% 0.0% 2.9% 8.70% 44,452,480 Oregon 25.4% 26.3% 1.3% 1.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 54.55% 61,598,720 South Dakota 4.1% 0.6% 10.2% 2.1% 0.5% 0.0% 0.1% 15.99% 48,881,920 Utah 15.4% 43.4% 4.4% 0.8% 3.8% 1.8% 1.3% 70.89% 52,696,960 Washington 21.5% 0.9% 6.1% 0.5% 4.5% 1.0% 1.8% 36.19% 42,693,760 Wyoming 14.9% 29.5% 3.0% 0.1% 3.8% 0.0% 1.3% 52.67% 62,343,040

TOTAL 1,317,411,840

Source: Federally Owned Property in the United States, by State, Agency and Bureau, US General Service Administration, October 1996.

204 Wildland/Urban Interface Fire History 1965 Northern Cal Series 113,766 41 (A wildland/urban interface fire is defined as one that destroyed at least three structures and Suncrest 1,260 7 burned over 25 acres of wildland.) 1967 Sence Ranch 17,431 5 Acres Structures Santa Susanna 25,000 10 State Year Fire Name Deaths Burned Lost Paseo Grande 48,639 61 Alaska Baliff 23,929 8 1 Woodson 17,560 30 1996 Prator Lake 120 3 1968 Louis 1,327 5 Miller's Reach #2 37,336 454 1969 Walker 17,000 8 2001 Red Fox 150 8 1970 Statewide Series 567,508 722 19 2002 West Fork Chena 22,251 3 Reche 4,168 3 Arizona Bear 53,100 54 1972 Swasey 1,933 8 1983 Pretzer 200 3 1990 Dude 25,000 30 6 Bradford 1,760 4 1995 Oldt 100 14 1973 Boulder 8,478 17 Bagdad 200 4 1975 Grundy 1,710 3 1996 Points 26 3 Pendleton 2,400 10 1997 Kuyhendall 410 6 1976 Quarry 38,346 8 2002 Bullock 30,563 7 Jacksonville 5,307 3 Rodeo/Chediski 468,638 496 Honey 1,482 3 1977 Sycamore 804 234 California 1978 Creighton Ridge 11,405 64 1955 Humboldt/Siskiyou 152,245 13 Mandeville Canyon 5,500 18 Refugio 84,770 20 1979 Hesperia 1,525 25 1 1956 East Highlands 15,330 5 1 Northern Cal Series 3,200 7 Sherwood 9,428 8 Laurel Canyon 150 24 Newton 26,169 50 Bernardo 9,000 10 Hume 1,940 9 1980 Tower House 2,349 3 1960 Homstake 10,948 10 Riverside 500 5 1961 Harlow 41,200 106 2 Dry Flat 28,655 6 Bel Air 6,090 484 Turner 28,000 7 1964 Hanley/Series 71,601 174 Indian 28,200 7 Weldon/Series 11,650 20 Lakeland 8,400 4 Coyote 67,000 94 1 Stable 5,482 65 Summit/Series 41,472 355

205 Panorama 23,600 7 Baldwin Hills 500 21 2 Kiowa 2,440 11 Morse (Pebble Beach) 160 37 1981 Thunder 11,500 29 1988 Amador 600 3 Atlas Peak 22,000 69 Railroad 10,750 15 Flat 1,500 3 Mason 4,072 5 Rieche/Series 29,704 6 Orinda 15 7 Swall 1,900 3 Lake 10 4 Oat Mountain 17,500 9 Miller 38,600 7 Cow Mountain 25,534 4 49er 33,700 312 1982 Gypsum 16,800 14 State 1807 4,738 5 Daydon Haul 57,000 65 Stagecoach 15 Dulzura 5,019 7 Rosa 4 1983 Porta Costa Series 325 10 Yucca 931 3 1985 Hidden Valley 1,250 20 Fern 7,790 58 Eight-Mile 462 13 Preston 1,000 7 Seco 1,954 3 Geysers 352 7 Gorda Rat 55,889 8 PG E #19 8,648 3 Cherry 40,231 17 Miller 10,000 18 Las Pilitas 74,640 41 1989 Kelly Ridge 4 Pala 325 3 Highway 26 400 9 Wheeler 120,000 26 Calaveras 425 4 Miller 8,000 3 Powerhouse 11,680 22 Deer 520 8 Olivas 813 3 Delta 1,620 3 Eagle 4,600 3 Lafayette 100 3 Poppet 1,328 3 Lehr 200 64 Ortega 6,100 13 Page Mill 100 13 San Benito 52 7 1987 Dog Bar 362 9 Joshua 690 6 Stanislaus Complex 144,762 28 San Martin 375 17 Clark 37,530 4 Two Rock 161 7 Gulch 6,800 6 Greenwood Series 159 Yellow Complex 47,770 3 Tuttletown 740 8 Glasgow 13,370 3 1990 Monterey 18 8 Salmon/St. Clair 8,600 35 1 Paint 4,900 641 1 Post 546 3 Carbon Canyon 6,640 14

206 Bedford 490 20 Highway 41 48,531 37 Glendale 75 50 Lakeland 2,400 8 Cottonwood 5 Scout 3,023 9 A Rock 12,136 66 Lucas 8,464 40 Pine 125,892 27 Hemet Complex 19,200 14 Long Gulch 2,100 3 1995 Jenny 420 6 Knoll 300 7 Sycamore 10,000 3 1991 Fiddle 20 3 Warners 2,400 20 Tunnel 1,600 2900 25 Riverside 5,000 6 1992 Borax 1,920 15 Bluff 2,624 3 Jay 550 3 Vision 12,354 45 Maidu 675 10 Lopez 1,985 4 Villa 6,700 19 1996 Ellis 43 6 Fawn 350 13 State 837 653 5 Fountain 63,960 636 Weber 360 4 Cleveland 24,580 26 2 State 165 3 Moccasin 8,370 6 Dove 930 3 Clear 190 5 Riverside 40 3 Idaho 50 4 Pechanga 1,336 3 1993 Greenmeadow 40,051 66 Gifford 31 3 Kinneloa 5,715 149 1 PGE #8 80 5 Stagecoach 546 8 Stumpfield 3,000 43 Mill Creek 4,680 6 Lightning #29 7,000 20 California 25,100 107 Peachland 25 4 Ortega 21,392 15 Highway 58 33,094 13 Guejito 20,722 9 Riverside 1,210 6 Laguna Canyon 14,808 366 Harmoney 8,592 110 Topanga 16,885 300 3 Rincon 1,800 6 Reppier 5,956 15 Calabasas 13,010 6 Old Coach 2,139 36 1997 Riverside 320 3 1994 Kelsey 860 33 Grove 1,235 3 Raulson 1,000 13 Calimesa 377 9 Bailey 7,000 8 Priest 250 10 Broens 1,650 4 Wohlford 457 8 Creek 442 3 Pamela 25 3

207 Pauba 7,800 10 Star 16,761 4 Wildwood 940 6 Stables 6,544 4 Poppet 1,500 5 2002 Galvilan 5,763 43 William 5,810 85 Troy 1,180 3 1998 Juniper 6,000 89 Loza 60 3 Edna 28,164 5 1 Hwy 58 1,380 6 Taylor 2,160 5 1 Pines 61,690 160 Bitterwater Valley 420 5 Croy 3,127 34 1999 Lowen 2,000 23 Pine 1,200 7 Dunstone 268 3 Arrowhead 2,688 7 Bloomer #3 2,590 9 Wolf 21,645 6 Musty #3 7 Copper 23,407 26 Willow 21,900 60 Borel 3,430 19 Canyon #4 2,580 230 Copo 1,460 3 Rumsey 3,015 6 Louisiana 6,574 7 Shockey 3,885 3 Deer 1,800 94 Oregon 280 5 McNally 150,696 17 Jones 26,202 264 Curve 20,857 73 2000 Manter 72,750 16 Leona 5,124 16 Berryessa 1,731 15 Sierra 594 21 Morgan 3,316 3 Williams 38,094 77 Happy 5,500 3 Union 350 5 Colorado 2001 Viejas 2,300 16 1989 Black Tiger 2,000 44 Stimpson 100 4 1990 Old Stage 2,000 10 Jackson 2,240 15 1994 Hour Glass 1,275 13 Creek 11,095 43 Wake 3,846 3 Leonard 5,167 22 1996 Buffalo Creek 10,000 10 North Fork 475 3 1999 Monument 100 9 Bus 242 12 2000 Bobcat 10,600 22 Oregon 1,680 33 High Meadow 10,927 51 Poe 8,333 170 Pony 5,240 4 2002 Big Fish 17,056 8 Bell 1,204 5 Coal Seam 12,209 43 Trough 24,970 30 Hayman 137,760 600 Highway 4,125 8

208 Iron Mountain 4,439 201 Lincoln Co Complex 10,000 17 Whitehall 1,630 3 Long Mesa 2,601 7 1991 Holter Lake 125 3 2 Million 9,346 13 1998 Shepard Mountain 30,000 34 Missionary Ridge 70,662 77 1999 NE Corner 3,917 10 Valley 393 6 Fishel Creek 28,155 5 Panorama 1,700 6 Anelope 7,240 20 Schoonover Gulch 3,860 13 Outlook 6,952 10 Hawaii 2000 Canyon Ferry 43,922 50 Fort Howes 55800 4 2000 Puu Kapu 4,500 3 Average Bad Day 1,310 11 Idaho Monture/Spread Ridge 21,800 4 1989 Lowman 46,000 25 Hell Creek 750 3 1991 Hauser Lk Complex 1,700 5 1 Valley Complex 173,563 227 2000 Clear Creek 126,000 10 Thursday 750 3 Burgdorf Junction 64,666 19 Blodget Trailhead 10,764 8 Fisher Springs 22,000 4 Gilger 640 3 Lookout Point 4,000 3 Maloney Creek 72,000 12 Trail Creek 34,759 30 Boulder Complex 12,604 9 SCF Wilderness 171,560 22 Skalkaho Complex 64,794 4 North Fork Wilderness 14,506 5 2002 Piskun 5,000 4 Indian/Prospect 11,100 3 Morse 4,275 3 Nebraska Kansas 1999 Thedford 75,000 15 Information is not available. Nevada Montana 1994 Crystal Peak 7,310 3 1977 Pattee Canyon 1,200 7 1996 Autumn Hills 3,800 4 1983 Baney Coulee 2,500 3 1999 Spring Creek 200 2 1984 Houghton Creek 12,061 3 2000 Coyote 15,000 3 Hawk Creek 180,508 44 1 South Cricket 65,000 5 1988 Red Bench 14,000 24 New Mexico Storm Creek 30,000 12 1974 Spring 14,500 45 Canyon Creek 120,000 6 1993 Burgett 5,350 8 1996 Hondo 7,651 32

209 2000 Cree 6,488 3 South Dakota Scott Able 16,034 64 1959 Deadwood 2,500 60 Manuelitas 1,410 4 1988 Westberry Trails 3,840 57 Cerro Grande 47,650 350 2000 Flagpole Mountain 7,800 4 Viveash 28,283 4 Jasper 82,600 3 2002 Kokopelli 986 29 2002 Grizzly Gulch 11,589 7 Penasco 15,904 12 Battle Creek 12,450 3 Lakes Complex 4,096 4 Utah North Dakota 1990 Wasatch 43 2 1999 Gap 69,000 16 2000 Box Canyon 200 3 2002 Manvel 5,750 7 2002 East Fork 14,208 55 Kraft Complex 35,100 17 Washington Oregon 1985 Barker Mountain 60,000 4 1975 Ten Mile Valley 232 4 1987 Hangman Hills 1,500 24 1987 Bland Mountain 9,593 35 1988 Dinkleman 50,000 3 1988 Milepost 70 160 4 1991 Firestorm 91 350,000 191 1 1990 Awbrey Hall 3,353 26 1992 Castle Rock Canyon 5,400 24 1992 East Evans Creek 10,135 5 1994 Chelan/Leavenworth 58,000 54 1 Sage Flat 1,095 6 1996 Bowie Road 3,020 7 1994 Blackwell Road 65 14 1997 Red Lake 1,151 5 Hull Mountain 7,990 44 1998 Cleveland 118,500 14 1996 Wheeler Point 14,960 11 2000 Rocky Hill 9,404 37 Skeleton 17,736 36 Goodnoe 4,800 3 1998 Lone Pine 5,290 3 Mule Dry 76,800 25 2000 East Complex 45,000 3 Eastside Complex 5,924 3 Middle Fork 50 3 2001 2002 Deer Point 42,674 5 Quartz 6,102 5 2002 Flagtail 8,000 3 Wyoming Winter 33,894 5 1988 Clover-Mist 319,575 14 Squire 2,804 6 North Fork 531,182 7 Shelton Ridge 12,681 6 2002 Hensel 14,730 7 Biscut 499,945 13 Eyerly 23,573 37

210 About the Authors William C. Teie retired from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) after a successful 34-year career. He worked up through the ranks from seasonal firefighter to Deputy Director for Fire Protection. In this position, he was responsible for all of the fire protection programs within CDF.

Chief Teie was very active in the California fire service. He was on several statewide boards and committees and was elected President of the California Fire Chiefs Association in 1986. He is a member of the National Fire Protection Association and the Institute of Fire Engineers, an international organization based in the United Kingdom.

He is the author of the Wildland Firefighting Fundamentals, Firefighter’s Handbook on Wild- land Firefighting, and Fire Officer’s Handbook on Wildland Firefighting and has developed several other training and operational aids for the firefighter. He has just completed the adaptations of several of these handbooks for use in the Republic of South Africa.

Brian F. Weatherford retired from CDF after a 35-year career that included fighting fires from Alaska to Mexico and from Montana to California. He rose through the ranks from firefighter to fire chief and at the time of his retirement commanded an organization including three county fire departments and two city fire departments with 62 fire stations, 88 engine companies and nearly 900 paid and volunteer firefighters.

He currently provides consulting services to local government agencies in the areas of fire protection planning, budget development, organizational theory, and management audits for specialized services, but only to the extent that these projects do not interfere with his primary avocation of fishing. Deer Valley Press 5125 Deer Valley Road, Rescue, CA 95672 (530) 676-7401 Fax (530) 676-7418 www.deervalleypress.com